All of us can claim the other is saying nothing of any point and we do. Orn has just done it above with the Rig-Veda, though I would not ascribe this intent to the man who has done such a lot for me just by being around. Pat managed to sustain me through some hard times whilst in his own. I'm not going to forget this if he goes off on one. We all hit that point in words where they just won't do and all we come out with this the sound of our heads banging the walls. Chaz is a much loved case in point, and still bangs on elsewhere, with odd bits of erudition and occasional insight. The training bricks of erudition can be very sterile, as any decent teacher should know and all of us forget from time to time.
I saw some dreadful headline yesterday about a woman determined not to let gender issues get in the way of her career. Here was an instant character for my novel. 'Caroline Mawly had never let gender issues get in the way of her career. Her complete lack of sexual preference had allowed her to sleep her way to the top in double-time'. Anything can be turned, and she turns out to be a good cop asking 'me' if her career has been plateaued because her breasts have shrunk, heaving them in my general direction as I reply she is now too good at her job to be promoted. Pat will enter the fray soon through the 'Kaliber Yawn' space. In another book, Orn may enter as a hooded rebel who has mastered the GROC ... I would like the debate to move on. Most of us can only invent each other. On 27 Jan, 06:03, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, it does me a lot of good. For all too long I had thought it > was my personal lack that resulted in my intuition that Pat has > changed paths. As much as I have enjoyed chatting w/Pat over the years… > and, yes, learned a thing or two…for some time now, Ian’s criticism is > spot on as I see it. An analogy would be my personal old saw of > reducing all arguments into being noting but relative mind stuff! > Perhaps of interest the first, second, maybe even third time. After > that…such reductionism is the same pattern being imposed upon all > situations with the result of completely stiffening other participants > input. > > I do not ask Pat to do anything…including not leaving, not taking a > sabbatical, not writing his book, not posting, nada! Pat will do as > Pat wish. And, knowing him as well as I think I do, feedback is > appreciated by him…all apologists aside. > > I’ve posted the following perhaps too many times too…however, it does > appear to be appropriate here now. > > "When Men of the Word, companions, worship, in their hearts refining > flashes of insight, then some become fully conscious of knowledge, > while others go their way mouthing empty words." Rig-Veda > > On Jan 26, 1:59 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > > > .com> > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > > - 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%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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
