My hope for you, is that you may someday "see" what is now unseen for you about what Pat has to say. I won't try to persuade you otherwise except to say that I do not see "God is everything and everything is God" as Pat's only statement. He has made statements that reveal possibility I had not before considered on many issues concerning scripture, physics and sometimes both. To generalize his contribution to the group as this one statement, and then judge it as "an intellectual dead-end," does none of us good.
On Jan 26, 4:36 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, my suggestion to Pat that he should be writing proper words in proper > books really has more to do with wanting him to get his arse into gear and > finish the damn thing. By his own admission he is re-hasing the same > conclusion here on Mind's Eye. > > The dead-end of Pat's theory might be my own perception. I honestly can't > see how a conclusion of (roughly) "God is everything and everything is God" > can lead to anything other than an intellectual dead-end. That doesn't mean > Pat is right or wrong, it's just that discussions, be they on free will or > the cannibalism of pygmy tribes, can all be reduced to the same > conclusion (and are with increasing frequency). > > Ian > > 2010/1/26 Molly <[email protected]> > > > Pat's posts don't take all of us to a dead end - quite the opposite > > for me, I understand the connections between science and scripture > > that he applies. Could the dead end be your own perception of what > > you are reading, Ian? Your opinion on whether or not what he writes is > > suited for this group is just that - your personal opinion. I don't > > find it appropriate. > > > On Jan 26, 11:57 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat, > > > > I do agree that, in a discussion, especially a good one, it's not > > uncommon > > > for the participants to assume the roles of student and teacher. That's > > not > > > particularly the feeling I've got from your recent posts, which, in my > > > opinion, have been a little didactic. Maybe preachy. > > > > That's the lesser of my issues, though. > > > > Unlike Molly, I neither like nor dislike what you have to say. I don't > > care > > > if there is a God or isn't, whether the universe is a singular > > > super-consciousness, or whether the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/etc are true or > > the > > > rantings of a drugged horse. It's frankly not on my radar. My concern is > > > that I don't think you can see the absolute intellectual dead-end of > > where > > > you theory takes every topic? Even the funny thread about pygmies and > > > communion... another victim of your reductionism. > > > > I do value your knowledge a great deal, but I think you're in a rut that > > you > > > can probably only work out by writing proper words in proper books. > > > > Ian > > > > 2010/1/26 Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > On 25 Jan, 08:39, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat, > > > > > > I am not upset by your claims, I'm only concerned (as a moderator) by > > > > your > > > > > increasingly didactic style and (as a fellow debater) by your blanket > > > > > reductionism of all arguments down to a single capitalised word. I > > find > > > > this > > > > > distilling of everything down to the same conclusion -- whether right > > or > > > > > wrong -- stifling to debate. > > > > > Ian, I'm hoping you'll respond to this. I understand that you're > > > > concerned that I might be coming across more as a teacher than a > > > > 'fellow' and I'll take that on board. However, have you considered > > > > that, in a discussion, any of us may teach one another and any of us > > > > may learn from one another? This means that, at some points, some of > > > > us 'will appear to be teachers' and some of us 'will appear to be > > > > students'. What I've learned from this response of yours is that you > > > > don't want to be preached to. That's OK. I'm not preaching. There > > > > is a difference between preaching and teaching. All of us teach and > > > > learn; this is a desirable effect OF debate. Just because some of > > > > your opinions are opposed to some of mine shouldn't cause you that > > > > level of concern. Rather, it should point out to you that my theories > > > > are developing and I am, as I have always done, used this forum as a > > > > sounding board. > > > > > > Whilst I'll continue to read your posts as a moderator, I don't think > > > > I'll > > > > > take part in a discussion with you right now. > > > > > Sorry to hear that. Hopefully, though, you will have read what I > > > > wrote above. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > -- > > > > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- 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.
