"This would involve the introduction of time into eternity or at least, perhaps, the seeing of time as the word of eternity and the fact that time is the word means that the word at least is temporal. This has interesting implications for Christology."
I think that you are on to something here, that may be the difference between the traditional interpretations of the old and new testament, and the mystical interpretations, that lend themselves more toward diagrams for consciousness raising or, in terms of this thread, the inclusion of the eternal into our consciousness. From my view, this can become the fabric of our being, the eternal now. For instance, I found this explanation of the story of the pool of bethesda in my email box the other day, and it struck me that this is what we are talking about in the non science and non medicine thread, healing through self image. The miracle would be bringing the eternal state of perfect health into the present moment. The process, according to this christian mystic, is given to us in this story of the bible. Here it is from a lecture of the mystic Neville Goddard: This story tells of an impotent man who is quickly healed. Jesus comes to a place called Bethesda , which by definition means the House of Five Porches. On these Five Porches are unnumbered impotent folk – lame, blind, halt, withered, and others. Tradition had it that at certain seasons of the year an angel would descend and disturb the pool which was near these Five Porches. As the Angel disturbed the pool, the first one in was always healed. But only the first one, not the second. Jesus , seeing a man who was lame from his mother’s womb, said to him, “Wilt thou be made whole?” John 5:6 “The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool – but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.” John 5:7 “ Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.” John 5:8 “And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked, and on the same day was the Sabbath.” John 5:9 You read this story and you think some strange man who possessed miraculous power suddenly said to the lame man, “Rise and walk.” I cannot repeat too often that the story, even when it introduces numberless individualities, takes place within the mind of the individual man. The pool is your consciousness. The angel is an idea, called the messenger of GOD. Consciousness being God, when you have an idea you are entertaining an angel. The minute you are conscious of a desire your pool has been disturbed. Desire disturbs the mind of man. To want something is to be disturbed. The very moment you have an ambition, or a clearly defined objective, the pool has been disturbed by the angel, which was the desire. You are told that the first one into the disturbed pool is always healed. My closest companions in this world, my wife and my little girl, are to me when I address them, second. I must speak to my wife as, “you are.” I must speak to anyone, no matter how close they are, as “You are.” And after that the third person, “He is.” There is only one person in this world with whom I can use the first person present and that is self. “I am,” can be said only of myself, it cannot be said of another. Therefore, when I am conscious of some desire that I want to be, but seemingly am not, the pool being disturbed, who can get into that pool before me? I alone possess the power of the first person. I am that which I want to be. Except I believe I am what I want to be, I remain as I formerly was and die in that limitation. In this story you need no man to put you into the pool as your consciousness is disturbed by desire. All you need do is to assume you are already that which formerly you wanted to be and you are in it, and no man can get in before you. What man can get in before you when you become conscious of being that which you want to be? No one can be before you when you alone possess the power to say I AM. These are the two outlooks. You are now what your senses would deny. Are you bold enough to assume that you are already that which you want to be? If you dare assume you are already that which your reason and your senses now deny, then you are in the pool and, unaided by a man, you, too, will rise and take your couch and walk. You are told it happened on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is only the mystical sense of stillness, when you are unconcerned, when you are not anxious, when you are not looking for results, knowing that signs follow and do not precede. The Sabbath is the day of stillness wherein there is no working. When you are not working to make it so you are in the Sabbath. When you are not at all concerned about the opinion of others, when you walk as though you were, you cannot raise one finger to make it so, you are in the Sabbath. I cannot be concerned as to how it will be, and still say I am conscious of being it. If I am conscious of being free, secure, healthy, and happy, I sustain these states of consciousness without effort or labor on my part. Therefore, I am in the Sabbath; and because it was the Sabbath he rose and walked. On Aug 13, 12:16 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is a real problem. I think there are three possible > explanations: > > 1) The occurrences are really random although that is hard to believe > as they are so specific. Yet it is possible that our ability to detect > them heightens with awareness and we begin to "look" is probably the > wrong word - definitely the wrong word - but "become more receptive" > might be better. I know of no way of determining the ratios needed to > verify whether these events are random one way or another empirically. > I have noted though that this heightened receptivity is not a simple > thing. It seems that these things do not just happen but are clustered > around a time of heightened conscious in general. They are not > unrelated to what is going on in one's life. I think that what happens > after these things do happen is that one begins to actually look > harder and that in fact does not help. There is a natural desire to > want them to keep happening, or for them to happen again. I don't > thing that paying attention and trying to fit events together works. I > know you've seen people strain to do that and it is just wrong. When > it happens it is obvious. When it is not happening it seems to be less > obvious and people are always trying to "make connections". > > 2) The occurrences are not random and are an indication of a > pantheistic fundamentalist creature. Perhaps, as our brains are > "alive" so is the larger universe. Perhaps there is some way of > communicating. The problem with this path is the relative obscurity > with which that path communicates and the ease with which I > communicate to you. It would certainly need to be weakly coupled. I am > not sure that the evidence warrants it. It is very sketchy at best. > Still it is possible. > > 3) There is a way to understand meaning such that it can communicate > in time. This would involve the introduction of time into eternity or > at least, perhaps, the seeing of time as the word of eternity and the > fact that time is the word means that the word at least is temporal. > This has interesting implications for Christology. It would involve > assigning some level of contingency which I stumble on. In other words > if the source really is meaning then it means the same all the time > and what it means is necessary. However, synchronicity can be highly > specific, right down to the moment. It seems that it has the property > of being not necessary but a specific act of communication. At least > the word is contingent. > > I confess that I don't know the answer. All of these are possible. I > kind of think 1 and 3 have a better shot. I really doubt though, that > even including the work of Jung, this is an aspect of our experience > that the dominant world views, both mainstream and religious and even > New Age, have the cultural apparatus to assimilate. Even with all the > writing and popularization we do not seem to have enough of a > community to let this mode of being play out. Heideggar thought that > language would evolve to poetry. That we would no longer speak, as we > do here on minds eye, "rationally". And in giving up that and > resorting to poetry then we could begin to live the truth and these > events would unfold as part of human history. Imagine synchonicity on > a national scale? Or better international? Imagine a debate carried > out in poetry? Difficult. Not since the old testement has something > like that been reported. What is instructive about the case of > Heiddegar, is that this led him to join the Nazi party. One needs to > be careful. If someone asks you to sacrifice your son you need to make > sure it is not the same one that was talking to Son of Sam. I think > that this is one area where balance and judgement if coupled with > courage and a complete willingness to follow work. Still I think the > old religious ways of thinking about it - you know - God is speaking > to me - God is a person - fail to distinguish between fundamentalism > and religion. I think that it is not as simple as the ancient > religions claimed. > > Have you ever heard of the main farmer and the agriculture expert? He > comes to the farm and gives the farmer a brief on modern agriculture. > Then he asks: "Well do you want me to come by with all of my materials > now and help you farm modern?" "Nope" answers the farmer. "Well why? > Don't you think that modern agriculture could enable you to farm 10 > times better than you do now?" "Yup" answers the farmer. "Well then > why don't you want me to come by and show you how to farm 10 times > better than you already do?" "Well" says the farmer "..you see I only > farm half as well as I know how right now..." > > I am also reminded of an experiment that I read about in which people > infiltrated mental hospitals by faking an extreme existential crisis. > They were instructed to once in, act completely normally. I remember > one woman who was in on the experiment went up to a psychiatrist and > asked when did he think she could be released. His response was to > answer: "Good morning, Mary, How are you?". It was like he was unable > to hear the meaning of her words because of his belief in her illness, > or rather his lack of belief in her health. Sometimes I have > approached synchronicity that way. I think that in my own life I have > not responded as literally as I would have liked. I responded a little > like the psychiatrist. I think the best thing for me is to realize > that study has limitations. No amount of it I am convinced will lead > to the truth and that does not mean that it isn't neccessary. It just > means that more is called for.. > > With respect to trying, or feeling a need, to understand the meaning I > would just stop trying and assume something like "If it wants to get a > hold of me it can. I am right here" But mean that actively. Like I am > here and if called upon I will serve. If there is an implication, and > you know what it means then I won't dodge the consequence. That kind > of thing. I would say something like "Ok, then that's it". I wish I > could say that I have always done that. Good luck. > > You seem like you have a kind heart. It will protect you. > > As for whiteness, I do not have a clue, but I will keep my eyes > peeled, Molly. Good luck! > > On Aug 13, 7:06 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The idea of meaning in experience is ever changing, it seems, for me, > > and a matter of viewpoint. Now I know that I have mixed your > > established metaphors, Justin, but I think it is relevant. How would > > you explain synchronicity in experience, for instance. This is > > something that changes meaning in experience for me. For instance, > > within the last 24 hours (local time) the mention of the color white > > and the concept of "whiteness" has come into my experience > > repeatedly. Because patterns such as this get my attention these > > days, a sort of hyper awareness kicks in, and what seems to be > > ordinary or even deconstruction is given new depth of meaning, and if > > I follow to completion, I am led to a greater relationship of some > > kind (in this case, it all seems related to my children) > > > Now allowing this kind of deep meaning in experience can also change > > relationship that is dependent on local time or time limited... > > > On Aug 13, 9:09 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think in a way you are coming to grips here with the relationship > > > time to nothingness and being. It is interesting that two of the major > > > philosophical works of western philosophy in the last 100 years are > > > "Being and Time" and "Being and Nothingness". You can see the same > > > issues being grappled with here. The relationship of Time and > > > Nothingness is in fact related to the concept of a consciousness > > > inherently in an existential sense. To put is as simply as I can: It > > > is possible to imagine having a subjective experience of -objectively > > > speaking- nothing, and that experience of -objectively speaking- > > > nothing has duration. We can then call that experience the "perception > > > of time" meaning the pure subjective experience of time (when speaking > > > in the subject-object dualism). It is possible to project this idea > > > "before the big bang" and state basically something like "Before the > > > big bang there was nothing". Spatiallity is a property of contingent > > > being but time, is inherent in the subject. To see how space can > > > collapse is relatively easy as can be seen by "imagining" a single > > > tone sound. The hard part is how time collapses into eternity. The way > > > it does is through a realization that being is meaningful and > > > therefore eternal.That objective existence and the space time > > > environment are contingent aspects of objectivity and subjectivity and > > > that it all ultimately is meaningful in what is called the collapse of > > > the subject object dualism, which for me comes down to a realization > > > of the meaning of experience and what is the same thing - the > > > realization of the meaning of being. Being is therefore essentially > > > eternal - it is the only essential eternality - all other essences > > > require being to be substantiated from nothingness or "just an idea" > > > to being. Being is therefore non-temporal. > > > > To put it jokingly: Time is a temporary phenomenon! I had a > > > philoosophy teacher once who thought the most illuminating question > > > about death was "How do you know when you are dead?" > > > > The way out of the axel wrap is to realize that "experiencing" is a > > > verb and is the basis of all "nominative" structures and finally that > > > it is meaningful. You/It are. Being is. The problem is in how you > > > think of what must be the case for "something to be". Is it really > > > necessary for there to "be something" in order for being to "occur"? > > > In some religious circles they speak of the "illusion" of things. This > > > is what they are talking about I think. > > > > On Aug 12, 8:18 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
