Now that you've got more of the theoretical background figured out, I don't suppose you and Neil could get around to fixing the wobbly gravatonic stabiliser on the Mark IV multi-dimensional flitzer in his garden shed, write the last piece of muon-conversion navigation code and pop quickly up to next Saturday to find the correct lottery numbers ... :-)
Francis On 27 Aug., 16:43, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 Aug, 15:30, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:> synchronicity! > > LOL!! I had the thought of writing that, too, but 'chose' not to. > Now I know why...it was already covered by a future event. The One > knows all. > > > > > On Aug 27, 10:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 27 Aug, 14:34, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > this seems in agreement with the mystic Neville's concept of awakened > > > > imagination, the law and the promise - his notion of how we create our > > > > experience based on our awareness of the law (all that is) and the > > > > promise (its unfoldment into our experience through our viewpoint.) > > > > Very nice. > > > > Neville was/is correct. And I only first heard of him 2 weeks > > > ago. ;-) > > > > > On Aug 27, 9:02 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 13:33, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't speak to Pat's motives, but I will say what I think in light > > > > > > of his work. He courageously outlines for us, the realm of > > > > > > possibility as he sees it. He tells us that we cannot change what > > > > > > is, > > > > > > which is everything possible. But we choose our awareness of all > > > > > > that > > > > > > is, our viewpoint. But doing this, we change who we are and live > > > > > > our > > > > > > potentiality of all that is. This is how we, as some say, co > > > > > > create. > > > > > > We do by making the possible real. We don't really change what is > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > Exactly!! To encapsulate that, "Make it up as you go along; you > > > > > have no choice but to do that." In a weird way, when we 'make it up > > > > > as we go along', we are, in reality, 'going with the flow' and, as you > > > > > say, become co-creators, as we are the agents of God. > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 8:20 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The thing about it though, all of it is that here Pat is giving us > > > > > > > what he rationalises as a cure for man's ills, a system based > > > > > > > upon the > > > > > > > spirtual belife of the Oneness of God, but who's logic is > > > > > > > scientific. > > > > > > > He presents it as a viable system for the betterment of man, and > > > > > > > yet a > > > > > > > part of it says that what will be will be, and we have no control > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > So why present it at all, what are his hopes? It is clear to me > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the uptake of this idea may not ever happen, at least on the scale > > > > > > > that Pat says is must. Who's mind is he trying to change and > > > > > > > why, in > > > > > > > the light of his revelation that none of us have a choice in the > > > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > If instead then he wants us all to become more aware of the truth > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the matter, then agian how are we to do this, if we cannot will > > > > > > > it so? > > > > > > > > This idea denies us any sort of control over our Selfs or our > > > > > > > destiny's, so really what is the point of mooting such an idea to > > > > > > > us, > > > > > > > if we cannot control wheater or not we belive it? > > > > > > > > In short what are Pat's motives for posting this? > > > > > > > > If Pat has motives then I'm afraid I am witnessing the evidance of > > > > > > > Pat's own will here, which invalidtates his claim that he has > > > > > > > none, > > > > > > > does it not? > > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 13:06, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What I like most about your work, Pat, is that it takes us > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > monism into a new paradigm, into completion with the inclusion > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > modern science, allowing clarity of the rational in the trans > > > > > > > > rational. I have been tossing around your no free will > > > > > > > > concept, and > > > > > > > > suspect that reticence to it may be a matter of semantics. I > > > > > > > > have the > > > > > > > > same trouble when people talk about the world being "illusion", > > > > > > > > or the > > > > > > > > world of duality an illusion. In our lives, there is duality, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > there is also more, there is non duality. And we can choose our > > > > > > > > viewpoint, giving us the feeling of free will. We are at the > > > > > > > > pool of > > > > > > > > Bethesda and our own self image prevents our entry into the > > > > > > > > waters. > > > > > > > > Only our own higher ontology can stir the water for us, and in > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > awareness, we are the first in. But, as you say, we reach the > > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > > where we understand that what we are choosing is to be aware of > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > own divine nature in a different way. So when you say that it > > > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > is, but our awareness of all that is changes, not being but > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > of being changes- be still and know that I AM, this I can > > > > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Over the past few days, as I’ve returned to this forum and > > > > > > > > > responded > > > > > > > > > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems that > > > > > > > > > I’ve caused > > > > > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found my > > > > > > > > > statements confusing in certain ways, particularly in the > > > > > > > > > area of > > > > > > > > > morality, which seems to be a popular topic on the forum > > > > > > > > > based on the > > > > > > > > > recent posting titled ‘More morality’. In particular, Lee’s > > > > > > > > > reticence > > > > > > > > > to accept that a decent morality can be derived from my > > > > > > > > > viewpoint, > > > > > > > > > especially in light of the proposed loss of free will. So, I > > > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > compelled to reveal a few of the cards I’ve been holding in > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > regard. The following is an excerpt from my book from the > > > > > > > > > chapter > > > > > > > > > called ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve > > > > > > > > > described my > > > > > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older > > > > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > > here are reasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string theory > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > describe the universe as a function of one entity of stringy > > > > > > > > > energy > > > > > > > > > and explains that this one entity, the only entity that > > > > > > > > > really exists > > > > > > > > > is, in fact, God.). Note: I don’t go into the ‘damnation’ > > > > > > > > > topic in > > > > > > > > > this excerpt; I’ll retain that card for a moment. > > > > > > > > > Now, of course, I don’t expect everyone will agree with > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > theory, as no one, yet, has come up with a theory to which > > > > > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > subscribes. But I expect that the following excerpt will > > > > > > > > > allay some > > > > > > > > > fears people have when they realise that the NEW morality > > > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > derivable from my theory is the old morality. The difference > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > that, now, rather than relying solely on faith, we can > > > > > > > > > practice it in > > > > > > > > > the knowledge that it is based on logic and a scientific view > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > reality (given that I work from a premiss that my theory is > > > > > > > > > correct). > > > > > > > > > So, to paraphrase The Who, “Meet the new morality. Same > > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > old morality.” As always, let me know what you think!! ;-) > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > What is sin if there is only one actor in the > > > > > > > > > system? Wise > > > > > > > > > King Solomon had the answer to that when he told us, in the > > > > > > > > > book of > > > > > > > > > Ecclesiastes, of the woes begotten of vanity: “Vanity of > > > > > > > > > vanities; all > > > > > > > > > is vanity.” (Eccl. 1:2) > > > > > > > > > When a soul thinks “I”, he separates himself from the > > > > > > > > > one that > > > > > > > > > is. Vanity is when we think “I”. This fundamental grasping > > > > > > > > > of our own > > > > > > > > > identity is completely counter to the concept of the oneness > > > > > > > > > (rather > > > > > > > > > than ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ describes God as One without unity) > > > > > > > > > of God. > > > > > > > > > In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon says, “The thing that hath been, > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > that which shall be; and that which is done is that which > > > > > > > > > shall be > > > > > > > > > done; and there is no new thing under the sun.” The first > > > > > > > > > clause of > > > > > > > > > Eccl. 1:9 is another declaration of the oneness of God, > > > > > > > > > saying that > > > > > > > > > God (the thing that hath been) is the only thing that exists > > > > > > > > > and is, > > > > > > > > > thus, that which shall be. The second clause pertains to the > > > > > > > > > argument > > > > > > > > > of fate vs. free will. In our space-time continuum, all > > > > > > > > > events are > > > > > > > > > extant in the whole of space-time. The future is just as > > > > > > > > > much “there > > > > > > > > > and then” as is the past. That which is (to be) done is that > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > shall be done. The concept of obligation inherent in the > > > > > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > “shall” is also relevant because God is obliged by His very > > > > > > > > > nature to > > > > > > > > > perform every act at the right time and at the right place > > > > > > > > > everywhere > > > > > > > > > always. The third clause is saying that there is no new > > > > > > > > > thing under > > > > > > > > > the sun (a metaphor for God) because there can be nothing > > > > > > > > > other than > > > > > > > > > the one thing, which IS God. It is also a metaphor for > > > > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > > > that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only > > > > > > > > > transformed from > > > > > > > > > one form to another; because ‘that which exists’ is energy > > > > > > > > > that has > > > > > > > > > always existed and always will, there can be nothing ‘new’. > > > > > > > > > In the Torah, eight of the Ten Commandments are negative > > > > > > > > > commandments, i.e., those that prohibit behaviours. The first > > > > > > > > > negative commandment is, “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt > > > > > > > > > have no > > > > > > > > > other gods before me”. God states that it is a sin to > > > > > > > > > acknowledge the > > > > > > > > > existence of Gods OTHER than Him. It > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
