Poets, the way Molly defines herself, are waiting for science to catch up with her. You argue exactly along the same lines. She opposed to being a scientist in this context. Would you define yourself as a synthesized proser then?
On 16 Sep., 14:44, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 Sep, 13:21, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we (humanity) are headed toward a reconciliation of science > > and spirituality or, an elucidation of what is always occurring for > > us. In a perfect world, these attempts would be concise, and yet, > > because we are not there yet, none of them are. I think we get closer > > all the time and I can appreciate the brave attempts. Anyone who puts > > themselves out there in print or digital imaging invites the critics, > > and there seem to be many more critics than creatives. Yet all of it > > is our nature, collectively and individually. This is how we learn > > and develop our viewpoint. This, of course, and dialogue. Thanks, > > folks. > > Exactly! Well said. Any science begins with speculation, which, > in turn, gives the materialists something to test. Sometimes, it's > easy to speculate, but, when you try to make sure that your > speculation is in keeping with 'facts as we know them' as well as > 'facts about which we know little or nothing', you expose yourself to > criticisms from those who are all to happy to point out that, by > speculation, you've proven nothing. As for me, it's not my office, as > it were, to prove my speculations, only my responsibility to ensure > that they are accurate to within current observations (as I don't have > access to future observations) and internally consistent. As for > Newton, my extrapolation of his laws of motion as being, potentially, > valid for spiritual bodies as well as physical bodies, is consistent > to the laws and consistent with Hindu theory (that's been known for > millennia). I'm a 'synthesist'; I take seemingly disparate concepts > and find the middle ground where they overlap. Others, who come > later, will hopefully, then be able to prove or disprove as science > catches up. Now, it's easy to disapprove (criticise), but not so easy > to disprove. > > > On Sep 15, 10:24 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Just in is right, elsewhere, when he says that mixing religion or > > > spirituality and science belittles both. Not because they cannot be > > > brought together in the same frame but, in my view, because it calls > > > for an extreme sharpness to learn in one and apply in the other, > > > interchangeably, all the way, untill there remains just one. > > > > adly, Neil, your post merely follows the stereotypical mode : > > > religion vs science. It adds nothing and only seems like one more > > > railing against. I can see you are ' for ' ' something,' but with such > > > thought patterns I believe you may be doing no good to your cause, > > > whatever it is ! The methodology ( to me, today ) seems extremely > > > regressive. Entertaining ? Perhaps, to one who is looking for that. > > > > I hope you get the job in Dubai. I know it would change your life > > > much, for the better. But, you ? > > > > On Sep 16, 4:18 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > cience hhas overturned many fables (though not necessarily the power > > > > of fable) - I often wonder how we might expose the liturgies of > > > > capitalism for what they are and thus discover what was working given > > > > that it wasn't. Instead the bwanking priests are still blackmailing > > > > us along ld religgious lines - if we don't pay their ransom (tithe) > > > > they won't do the chanting that ensures our prosperity. They are > > > > saying this to us even after all their runes and litanies have just > > > > failed and we have had to empty our social confers to save them. What > > > > we haven't done is formulated a science of living without their magic > > > > wand. I actually think Pat is wrong here, though one can see in Vam's > > > > exegesis notions of forces very familiar in relatonal physics. > > > > Physics was never my bag, but my colleagues in it always seemed the > > > > most religious and inclined to a certain rhythm even if even more > > > > appalling social misfits than I. These days they are seeking all > > > > kinds of Indian rhythmic mathematics to see if it somehow sways in > > > > harmony with the universe they can prod. Even quarks sound like > > > > mystical history - originally 6 there are now just two, clinging > > > > together because they are so much more attractive to each other when > > > > apart. Bwankers in sack-cloth and ashes and worker control of capital > > > > trough goovernment directly and openly consulting the people - now > > > > there's something to pray for. > > > > > On 15 Sep, 17:54, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Gunas are fundamental to Sanhya philosophhy, also termed Sankhya Yoga. > > > >> Kriishna himself says i Bhagwaat Gita that, among all ygas, hee is > > > > > Sankhya Yoga. And, among al yogis,,he iis Kapil muni, th stallwart > > > > > Sanhya yoggi. > > > > > > Gunas takes our relisatton oof our self beyond the ego where most of > > > > > ourunderrstanding stops, for the ego is nothing but constituted of > > > > > gunas. > > > > > > Even Prakriti, the nature both primordial and individuated, is nohing > > > > > but constitted of ggunas. Only Purusha, or the Witness - Self, is not. > > > > > > The most popular and wel - kknown o all yoogas, Patanjal Yoga, is > > > > > entirely based of Sankhya principles. > > > > > > Ther is nneer, withhout exception, when all three gunas ar not > > > > > present in any being or thing. Only occassions when one may > > > > predodominate, while the other two are dormant or attenuated.y one's > > > > > > choice of realisation, and in thought and action, one may cause the > > > > > predomination of one. > > > > > > In Prakriti, or the penultimate realisation, all three gunase in > > > > > > complete balance, annng the ehe effect of each other. > > > > > > Each gbecomecomes a means to liberation, in correspondingly > > > > > appropriate situations. > > > > >n Sen Sep 15, 4:32 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > When I got home last night, it dawned on me that Sir Isaac > > > > > > Newton’s main goal and deepest interest was to discover how spirit > > > > > > and > > > > > > the universe interact; which is why a huge percentage of his > > > > > > writings > > > > > > were alchemical—the scientific findings were, more or less, a by- > > > > > > product of his overall search for a Theory of Everything, which > > > > > > would, > > > > > > necessarily, include spiritual phenomena. I then had the thought > > > > > > that, perhaps he had intended his ‘Laws of Motion’ not just to > > > > > > include > > > > > > physical bodies, but spiritual bodies, as well. Now, his laws have > > > > > > been expressed in many ways, but, at home (which is where I am at > > > > > > the > > > > > > moment of writing this), the only book that I found (I’m sure there > > > > > > are a couple more, but I couldn’t find them and went with what I > > > > > > found > > > > > > first) that has them listed is ‘The Hutchison Encyclopae1997’,97’, > > > > > > not > > > > > > the best source, but, I think, it’s good enough. > > > > > > Thrst law saates that “un “unless acted upon by a net force, a > > > > > > body at rest stays at rest, and a moving body continues moving at > > > > > > the > > > > > > same speed in the same straight line (direction)”. Now to me, that > > > > > > just screamed out “That is the Western scientific version of the > > > > > > gunas > > > > > > of Hinduism”. Vam, I expect, may want to set me straight here with > > > > > > respect to a few detai glosgloss over, as his knowledge indHinduism > > > > > > far exceeds mine, but, I’ll describe this as I see it. The three > > > > > > gunas are: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They are spiritual qualities/ > > > > > > forces that, together, express the ‘net spiri forcforcesat aff at > > > > > > > > us. Sattva is usually depicted as simple (!), clarity of mind, > > > > > > Rajas > > > > > > as a disruptive, disturbing influence and Tamas allnessness and > > > > > > lethargy. In this analogy, I settva tva as representing an > > > > > > individual’s truest sense of self, their own unsullied > > > > > > consciousness, > > > > > > and Rajahe gen general disruptive, interactive force) and Tamas > > > > > > (spiritual inertia), is how one individual experiences ano > > > > > > > > individual’s Sattva. Whilst it is true that one can be affected by > > > > > > another’s Sattva, it is harmonic enough as to not distress the ss > > > > > > > > do the other forces of Rajas and Tamas. Tamas is what keep > > > > > > > > depressed person depressed and why it’s harder to motivate a depressed > > > > >ividudividual than one who is not depressed. So, too, a mind/soul > > > > >filled > > > > > > with Tamas will tend to remain at rest (and depressed and slothful > > > > > > and, in extreme cases with the right combination of Rajas, self- > > > > > > harming) until acted upon by sufficient Rajas (and/or Sattva [but it > > > > > > takes more Rajas at first!]) sat ithat it can, once again, achieve > > > > > > its > > > > > > own Sattva. ch Rauch Rajasake anake an individual aggressive, lik> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bull in a china shop and is what keeps the manic, manic. Sa > > >s > > > > > uiet quiet forward motion with no external forces impinging on it. > > > > > (Too > > > > > > much Sattva usually leads to mokshs not is not considered > > > > > > problematic!) > > > > > > So, to paraphrase Newton’s first Law: A (moreic sousic soul > > > > > > will > > tend > tend to remain Tamasic until acted upon by Rajas (and/or Sattva) > > and a > > > > > > (more) Sattvic soul will contibe Sattbe Sattvic until acted upon by > > > > as (andas (and/or Tamas). (ted terted themore’ ‘more’ in there to > > > > denote > > that > that each soul is, in m the ra the rarest of cases, comprised, t> > > >e > > > > > > extent, of all three gunas.) And, we have a sound spiritual concept > > > > > > (that’s been recognised by Hindus for millennia) that is an almost > > > > > > perfect co to Nry to Newton’s first Law. > > > > > > Looked at another way—probably Newton’s alchemicalttva > > va > > > > > > becomes Salt, that > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
