I do understand what you are saying about the Kingdom, and can admire the way that you can present it coming full circle through the science, as many will revolt against the religious terminology. Yet we do come to the same place, with our science and our mysticism, and the importance of understanding this viewpoint and our place in it cannot be denied. That threshold of fear, where our own shadow keeps us from the non dual experience, is where I find most verbose folks whose need to rail against the world's ills might be threatened by taking responsibility for the world in a new morality. This anxiety can be difficult to let go of, like the fear that guards the threshold. Letting go of the need to find the world wrong so that we can feel right is releasing our own golden shadow. What we cannot know without crossing the threshold is that releasing it is also stepping into it, and opening the door to infinite possibility for ourselves and our experience. We choose possibility with our veiwpoint, creating our experience, and when we cross the threshold and accept the will of God as infinite possibility, all that is as our own. The paradox can be unimaginable, especially to those who hold tight to fear, good and evil and its sweet fruit, me and not me. The promise of the Kingdom and infinite possibility is so much more...
I wish for you, Pat, success. Thanks for including me in the journey. On Sep 2, 7:33 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
