On 16 Sep, 22:49, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
>
I write both poetry and prose, neither of which, of necessity, have
anything to do with the synthesis of science and religion. I suspect
that, if I'm remembered at all, it will be more other people's
opinions of me than those of myself that would form exactly how I
would be remembered.
> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
