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!
>
Perhaps you could have a read through this:http://
www.spacetimesociety.org/Petkov.html
Although it's just one more person saying the same thing. So, if you
refuse to listen, you won't hear it, here, either. But even if no one
hears, I will keep saying; for I have hope. ;-)
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
