This question is irrelevant to the self that depends on reflection. The reflection shows whatever it shows - it is neither right nor wrong. These selfs naturally categorize along the lines of being true or untrue. These selfs wouldn’t know what to counterbalance honesty with. That’s my view. And I’m always happy to be proven wrong.
On 30 Aug., 17:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
