Good, Pat ! Indeed, Kingdom of God. I understand your saying : It is One. It is God. It is Kingdom. It is I. That makes four - One, God, Kingdom, and I. Now what ? You'd say, it is One. Then, why were / are the other three there ? What good are they, the purpose ? Are they or are they not ?
On the other hand, whether it is four, three or one, it is I in command now, facing the music, standing, retreating or advancing, feeling, choking on my breath, dealing with my blood pressure, thinking, confused, in doubt, knowing, analysing, having to see, deal with, decide, not confident, weak, happy, sad, noise, pollution, poverty, greed, good ... It is I, with the choice and the power to do or not to do, now. There is no automatic connection with all of that idea of yours - four, three or one. None of that helps me with this task I have before me. Nothing you say or have advised us to obtain, in terms of idea or understanding, enters the picture unless I reflect upon it four, nine or seventeen times. Which luxury I do not have. It's to be done now. I even know I need to " do unto others, as I do unto myself." But, everything is unclear, much even opposed to me doing that. It just does not happen. It needs to be done, everytime. Just doesn't happen, four, three or one notwithstanding ! The crucial role of I, even to me, is stark, direct and obvious. I'd be much helped if I can reach within me, this I am forever intimate and immediately one with, and find something to clarify this world within I am faced with, lends me the courage to step up on to doing what I need to, and strengthen me for the vicious consequences I might face for my conduct. I'd like me to help myself, empower myself, and others if I could. The One, God, Kingdom could help. But, if they too mean what they've laid down and value what I need to ( unto others ... ), they'd converge on me, in my decision and my action, anyway. They'd be false if they did not, isn't it ? It is I who must act and live with the consequences, and it is ' I ' I must summon forth the strength and conviction from. The other, practical and philosophical, aspect of your idea is that it has no place for all the events that do not manifest, happen, are excluded in favour of the one event that does at any space - time coordinate. What is that, Pat, all those other events that were equal or even better alternates that did not happen ? Where are they ? Why are they ? What happens to them ? Are they nothing, meaningless, to be purged away from within us ? I am not looking for a ' pat ' response, Pat. But I do want you to appreciate these issues. Reality must spring from what is real to us. On Aug 28, 1:16 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 Aug, 18:37, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > " Try as you might, you will only ever perform one event at any given > > place/time." > > > You mean, Pat, that we cannot move both our hands at the same time, > > causing two events at the same time ? > > That's correct. Threy are separated by space-time not just by > space. They are very close to one another, but they do not occupy the > same space-time or you would perceive them as one. Time is joined to > space and if you perceive a spatial difference, then you must admit a > temporal one as well. > > > From what I've seen in yoga, sports, talent and reality show > > programmes on television, I visualise people with the ability to move > > their two legs, mouth, -----, or sundry other appendages at the same > > time ! All this, multiple events at the same time, while being at the > > same extended point in space. > > You allow the machinery of your body and its rate of perception > with the reality of the matter. All things seemingly separated by > space are, in fact, separated by space-time. We've known this to be > true for almost 100 years. > > > More importantly, apart from rooting the old commandments in > > scientific perspective, what can the man in the street reach for in > > the stringy energy theory, in terms of values for action or thought > > and decision - making he's called upon to deliver on in his day to day > > life ... choice, will, discrimination, effort, behaviour, > > relationship, profession, creativity, etc. > > Simply put, my friend, he can reach for the Kingdom of God. When > you accept that it is God that DOES, you will understand that God > rules. And when God rules in your heart, the Kingdom (the rulership) > of God is established within you. > > > In other words, what does the theory have for the common man in terms > > of strength, clarity and direction, if one cannot appreciate the > > rarified mathematics involved in it ? > > It leads him to the Kingdom of God and it makes him understand that > 'that which you do to others, you have done to yourself', as there is > only One. > > > > > On Aug 27, 9:21 pm, 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
