LOL - Applause! On 27 Aug., 18:51, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I hear ya, the hope part, the physics, space and time etc, but as I > said earlier, I get lost in the theistic mix, the correlation of > such. It's a noble task, one which I'm sure you have prepared > yourself for. Like convincing lions to turn vegan. > "Now ladies and gentlemen, let me demonstrate how this celery stalk is > more appealing to this beast than me, heeeerrree kitty kitty". > > On Aug 27, 11:39 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 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 maics is so is solid. > > > > What more can I say? > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 16:22, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >ee, you've ke've kept it simple and the rigour of the mirror you've > > > >offered > > > > > > is remarkable. That is, untill I've read Pat's response. > > > > > > > 27, 5 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 'natr 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 unf. > 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 con I beif I belive in this system of > > > > > > > his, > > > > > > > so why is he tryihange 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. > > > > > > > presentsrit as 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 a of crt of control over our Selfs or our > > > > > > > > > destiny's, so really what is the point of mooting such an > > > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we cannot control wheater or not we belive it? > > > > > > > > > > In short what are Pat's motives for posting this? > > > > > > > > at hasIf 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, > > > > doe > > > does it not? > > > > > > > > > > On 27 Augolly Brogan ly 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 >used > > > > > > > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have > > > > > > > > > > > found my > > > > > > > > > > > statements innfusing 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 > > > > > > > > > > >inalled ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve > > > > > > > > > > >described my > > > > > > > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the > > > > > > > > > > > older members > > > > > > > > > > > here are aasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string > > > > > > > > > > > theor > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
