Heh it seems Molly that your expperiances here have caused just a change in viewpoint for you, as now it appears that you agree, experiance makes viewpoint?
Now I'm confused again. I'm going to disagree with this though: ' But our relationship to our experience, (how we perceive and respond, who we become in relation to our experience,) and all that is in it is what forms our viewpoint and is the basis of our actions' I think it is more than posible, that viewpoints are created and maintained in ignorance, or to use the langue that you have. It is likely that most viewpoints are there as a process of genetics and upbringing and other things, and that most people do not examine their experiances very much to conclude the validity of these view point and rather, act upon them as if they were 'truth'. Which is a longer way of saying, viewpoints can and do exist without any perception or response to our experiances. In fact I belive that if we do examine our viewpoints and find the reason why they are there, we may be able to rid ourselves of thoses that we find unhelpfull. Case in point, I was brought up as a racist, when I was old enough to examine this viewpoint I found it not helpfful and so disgared it. So this is a viewpoint that was instilled in me and it's formation had no bearing on my experiances. It was only after I had had some lifes experiance that I was able to look deeply at it. On 1 Sep, 14:42, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think anyone is suggesting the unexamined life. Our > relationship to our experience certainly contributes to our > viewpoint. The experience itself can be examined ad nauseum and the > level of detail is infinite. But our relationship to our experience, > (how we perceive and respond, who we become in relation to our > experience,) and all that is in it is what forms our viewpoint and is > the basis of our actions. Finding harmony with our experience may > include changing what we do not like about it, if indeed this is what > we are doing. Too often I think, we think we are changing what we > don't like, but what we are doing is perpetuating what we don't like > by making it the focus of our viewpoint and putting our energy to it. > Working to right a wrong that creates anxiety often creates more > anxiety. Violence breeds more violence. Working to create peace and > harmony might be more along the lines of the difference you have in > mind. > > What we do that makes a difference does include examination of self > and relationship to experience above all, so that we understand our > life, the world we are living in and how we, by finding our harmony > with god or the creator or creation or the universe or our infinite > experience, also find our peace with everything and everyone in our > experience. As we understand ourselves better, which includes our > relationship to our experience, our viewpoint changes to one that > includes our connection to everyone, how our thoughts and feelings and > actions effect, not only ourselves, but everyone. To me, this is the > brightest morality there can be. > > On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hey Molly, > > > Do you not think though that it is experiance that shapes our > > viewpoint? > > > Consider the new born baby, are you saying that her viewpoint is > > already inplace? That how she grows cannot change the viewpoint that > > she has been born with? > > > As I said to Pat, one of the biggest problems that I can see in this > > is that it leads to a life that is unexamined. Why examine a life in > > order to change what you do not like about it, if whatever you do > > makes no differance? > > > The awarness of this I see not as you do at all. Intrinsicly it leads > > one to nilhism, and I would suggest a cold morality, whereby nothing > > we do matters anyhow, a kind of null morality. > > > On 29 Aug, 16:10, 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? > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > to various statements from my own viewpoint, it seems that > > > > > > > > > I’ve caused > > > > > > > > > a bit of a stir. That’s fine, but I think many have found my > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
