On 2 Sep, 14:05, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Cheers, Molly!! The journey's only beginning. I suspect it will
continue for another 30-odd years and, then, a better speaker than
myself will take the reins. Until then, it's my job to lay down the
foundations so that THAT can happen. But, of course, there will be a
strong opponent in those days and he was only JUST conceived this
week. Success, of course, is assured as God's will cannot be overcome--
even by those who think they have a will separate from His. ;-)
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
