On 27 Aug, 17:46, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You are right Pat, maths does make my head do funny things, science I
> get, even the odd abstract idea is comprehensible to me, and maths of
> the kind you are speaking of, well it's only shorthand isn't it give
> me the long version.
>
> Or better still explain to me what it was that made you belive what
> you say is true?
>
> I do get this idea of certian things being determined by other things
> that have happend, I belive that without the evidance to show it, that
> it is a massive leap to then assign the same to all things, easpecily
> to conciousness.
>
> Even my cats I can show you have differant 'personalities' they use
> differant methodes to get food or petting, from differant members of
> my family, they have faveroite resting places and prefer to cuddle up
> to differant family members.
>
> One of the reasons for my disbelife here though Pat are your own
> words. You say for instance that one cannot see the future, that what
> will be, and that we have no control nor can we change that which is
> destined to happen, but then you say that we cannot see into the
> future. So how do you know? How do you know that we cannot change
> what will be, if you cannot see into the future? There is an inhernt
> flaw in making claims of cerian knowledge when you also claim that we
> cannot know, is there not?
>
> If you claim certian knowledge, as you do, you belive that this system
> is correct, then you have already made a mockery of part of your
> system.
>
> I'm sorry my freind, but as we know 'extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence' yet each and every time I ask you to provide
> some, you wiggle out of it, not some of the time, not once or twice,
> but each and every time.
>
> Yes I know I keep banging on about it, but if you know, and you expect
> me to belive you then it is not unreasonable to ask you to show me how
> you have this certian knowldge (even though the having it contravens
> your own system), is it?
>
> You claim a lack of time, yet none of your posts can be considered
> short, you have enough time I notice to answer each and every other
> question, as long as it is not a request for proof.
>
> What conclusion I wonder would you draw from such behavouir in another
> here?
>
Read my reply, then, to Vam, below. The key is there. If you can
find understanding, you will know that I have told you the truth. If
another said what I said, I would investigate it, and I would find it
to be true. So, investigate.
> On 27 Aug, 17:21, 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!
>
> > 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.
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
