Does this not rather neglect the idea that a rational individual might be wrong rather than 'viewpointed'?
On 30 Aug, 14:17, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Your view is wrong because your viewpoint is yours and whatever you > create you say you are aware of, it will still remain your viewpoint > and not ours. What you describe resembles the process of a natural > bias cell turning undetectable, wandering further inside, multi- > copying itself and gaining automatic control from there. My viewpoint. > A different viewpoint. No misunderstanding. > > On 29 Aug., 17:10, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see the new morality in this because: an awareness of how our > > viewpoint creates our experience naturally allows for an intrinsic > > morality - one that comes from the inside and moves out, instead of > > being developed and then imposed from the outside in. We no longer > > recognize it externally as a social imperative and mold our actions > > accordingly, but move through it in our experience because our > > viewpoint allows our connection with all of humanity to provide the > > basis for moral and ethical behavior. > > > On Aug 27, 9:40 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't see a new morality in any of this. I have long been rather > > > frightened of morality, which is often no better than a claim to be > > > better than 'anything goes'. Spinoza can be seen as asking us to > > > accept some basic values and a fair, secular society as the basis for > > > freedom of the individual within those rules. Russell and others may > > > have said much the same, withdrawing God to agnosticism and questions > > > about a reality different from either the physical or the mental > > > (science goes there). Larkin (they fuck us up our Mums and Dads) > > > still managed to be a racist. I think we should be questioning the > > > deep and iconic in our societies on a broader base than current > > > science. We should have rights (however impossible to ground > > > intellectually) and make these truly workable - then recognise > > > responsibilities and ensure we can stick to these. This, in turn > > > leads to questions on authority and how that can be legitimate (the > > > postmodern question before long-winded hacks got into it). Somewhere > > > in all this it would help us to know better that science is never > > > grounded in logic - there is always approximation and room for > > > imagination. We often want to ground our morality in some kind of > > > lust for certainty. History shows we can place our faith in any old > > > bull (Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher, Rwanda etc. ad infinitum). Lyotard > > > wrote a great ripping yarn on the 'Libidinal Economy' years ago > > > (1974?). At the heart of a new morality we need a proper and fair > > > review of living and what is possible, what is fable and what is fact > > > (recognising facts are not certain and forever). > > > I often think Dr. King got it wrong when he repeated that tyranny > > > anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere - my guess is we are ruled > > > by tyranny that can lie to us about almost everything. What we need > > > to do is deconstruct (not the gormless French philosophy of > > > literature) as we construct genuinely new ways of using our > > > knowledges, and take care we recognise we will not condone everything > > > (beaten women in Burkas etc) and there is a practical need for law and > > > policing. We should not deny the agents of god stuff too quickly - > > > but also remember what chronic shits such groups have often been. > > > Damn good try Pat - whether I agree or not is immaterial - we need the > > > realm of possibilities. > > > > On 27 Aug, 14:02, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > Exactly!! To encapsulate that, "Make it up as you go along; you > > > > have no choice but to do that." In a weird way, when we 'make it up > > > > as we go along', we are, in reality, 'going with the flow' and, as you > > > > say, become co-creators, as we are the agents of God. > > > > > > 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? > > > > > Pat hat 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, > > > > > d > does it not? > > > > > > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 1 Molly BrogaBrogan <[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 cave > > > > > > > > caused > > > > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found my > > > > > > > > statements cong sing 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 > > > > > > > > ca‘Sed ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve > > > > > > > > described my > > > > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older > > > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > here are realynably aware (Essentially, it uses string y to > > >o > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > ol > 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 > > > ... > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
