I know Molly - there always remains a problem with this 'fine thinking' I can't cope with. It's hearing the same argument from the crassly selfish. The classic is the 'drip down' theory of economics.
On 31 Aug, 14:28, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that is true enough, Neil. But someone who can't take being > proven "wrong" is already enmeshed in the duality of right and wrong, > so their communication is limited to those parameters. What, I think, > Pat is suggesting, is something beyond right and wrong, which > separates us. His notion that we can find that viewpoint within us > that gives us the understanding that, while we are individuals, we are > also intrinsically bound as one vital creation, that what effects me > also effects you, including what I think and feel...this notion leads > to a new morality not with new ideas about morality, but with a new > viewpoint that how I hold my mind and heart creates my experience and > influences everything and everyone in it. Because of this (the new > ethics also) I am able to act always for the greater good, and that > acting for my own good is acting for the greater good simply because > this connection holds in my mind the greater good always. (the crux, I > think, of Rand's Altruism, lost for the most part, to dualistic > thinkers.) > > On Aug 30, 6:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
