On 27 Aug, 17:51, 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".
>
LOL! Yes, I ask people to give themselves over to the One. It's not
a new message and people still don't understand. It's a hard thing to
give oneself up but, in so doing, you find your true self and your
real relationship to everything. This, too, has been said before and
not understood. I hope to fill in the gaps so that people can know
that it is true.
> 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 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,
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
