On 27 Aug, 17:10, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Pat my fine fellow, that is just the thing, you keep on saying, and do
> no showing.
>
> Let me say this. I have two hands one is black the other is white.
> You do not belive me? Let me tell you this then. I have two hands
> one is white but the other is black.
>
> What you still do not belive me? Then let me explain this to you. Of
> the two hands that I have, one is black, but the other, it is white!
>
> Ahhh so you would like me to show you both of my hands so that you can
> see the validity of my claims for yourself? Yes I will do
> that.....tomorrow!
>
Cute, but irrelevant. What you want to see is implicit in the
mathematics. You tell me your eyes glaze over when confronted with
mathematics. So, what can I show to an individual who has glazed
eyes?
The 'truth' about 4-D space-time and determinism is not MY idea.
It sprang forth from Einstein and Minkowski. If you don't believe
them or me or grasp the maths, the only thing left is to show you your
future. I don't have that ability. And it doesn't matter how many
times you ask. Buy a book on Special Relativity. Buy the collected
works of Einstein/Minkowski. I've stood on their shoulders and seen a
little farther. Whether or not you accept the truth of it doesn't
give you the choice you imagine you have. Try as you might, you will
only ever perform one event at any given place/time. And the universe
is just a string of similar events. And it forms a straight line with
no branches. No branches, no choices.
> On 27 Aug, 16:51, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Aug, 16:34, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Yes Vam, Pat's arguments are convincing, but as I say no evidance yet,
> > > only his belief.
>
> > > It is one thing to say that all in my life is so because of
> > > determinisim, and another to show that it is so.
>
> > You want me to show you your future? You really don't want that,
> > trust me. Determinism is implicit in a 4-D space-time. Einstein knew
> > that, Minkowski knew that and I know it. The mathematics is solid.
> > What more can I say?
>
> > > On 27 Aug, 16:22, Vam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Lee, you've kept it simple and the rigour of the mirror you've offered
> > > > is remarkable. That is, untill I've read Pat's response.
>
> > > > On Aug 27, 5:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Yet Pat does not say this at all Molly. We choose nothing, it may be
> > > > > that circumstanes enable us to discover more about our 'nature' or it
> > > > > may not, we have not say in the matter. The very words I am using in
> > > > > order to explain this I am not choosing, they are coming out due to my
> > > > > lifes circumstances and other compulsions that 'I' am unaware of.
>
> > > > > So we cannot choose our awareness, nor can we change who we are.
>
> > > > > And that's the pint I am making, if we really have no choie then what
> > > > > are Pat's motives, I can't control if I belive in this system of his,
> > > > > so why is he trying to change my mind if my mind is not mine to
> > > > > change?
>
> > > > > I think this shows that Pat himself is engaged in using his own will,
> > > > > which invalidates what he says.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
