I know you are Gabby. There are sadly many who just can't take it.
On 30 Aug, 18:39, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
