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.
>
Spot on, Molly!! You seem to be the only one that gets this.
This internal/intrinsic morality is Jesus' "Kingdom of God/Heaven" and
the Jewish concept of "circumcision of the heart". When one knows,
beyond any doubt, that it is God that is working through us and that
it is God who 'rules', that is, completely governs what we do, then we
would, by our awareness of God, maintain godly behaviours. Those who
refute the rulership of God, have raised themselves as equals of God
and think they can 'act' and God has nothing to do with it. If so,
then their God is not omnipotent, nor is their God one. So, by making
an 'apparent choice' to act against God--as, if you are not with Him,
you must, therefore, be against Him--they stand at odds with the One.
It was THAT kind of thinking that got us kicked out of the
metaphorical garden. The fruit of the tree of knowledge between good
and evil is the appearance of choice. That appearance tastes so good
but it creates a boundary between the chooser and God such that
'returning to God' becomes necessary. The ability to perceive choices
(more properly, the ability to speculate about possible futures) is
one of the great confounding aspects of the universe, however, because
it appears and has to be overcome in order to understand the true
nature of the universe, it holds a power over us so long as we remain
under its spell. Once mankind perceived this spell, our religious
history tells us that God made a few covenants with man and explained
things through various prophets. Most people have not understood the
language used (similies/metaphors) because of the way the message was
told (in such a way as to be easy on the ears). Now, I've come and
stated it in plain language and most people (here, at least) seem to
understand and rebel, as the message wasn't sweetened for taste.
Nevertheless, the message is the same, but, now that science has
demonstrated that free will is an illusion (by demonstrating that we
exist in a Minkowski 4-D universe), our 'apparent choice' is to accept
the truth an realign our understanding in accordance with it, or keep
fooling ourselves and, in the meantime, keep killing one another
because we feel we ought to have a choice.
I understand that learning about free will is a lot like learning
about Santa Claus, but it's time to grow up and be a part of the
greater community. I strongly suggest that, if there are extra-
terrestrial lifeforms that have reached a level of technological
advancement that has led them to interstellar travelling, I would
imagine that they understand space-time enough to know the truth about
free will (we do, though we, as a species, tend to ignore it). That,
in turn, would make them VERY reticent to make contact with such
brutes as us who think we act independently of the only One who CAN
act.
> 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
> > > > > > > statements confusing 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
> > > > > > > called ‘Sin and Damnation’. This part comes AFTER I’ve described
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > theoretical monistic model of which only some of the older members
> > > > > > > here are reasonably aware (Essentially, it uses string theory to
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
