On 26 Jan, 21:36, 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 >
Yet, if I'm correct (and we all assume that our views are or we wouldn't assert them), this would be the case. It's logic that, if you begin with 1 and there are no others, you are, invariably left with 1. But, as I'm striving towards a Theory Of Everything (as is science!!), it will, invariably yield 1. It's not reduction but unification. But, of course, unification is a poor choice of words, as it implies a bringing together of parts, and I don't believe that is the case. Rather, what we see is 'an interplay between the ends of the extensions' That's why I assert that all (that we perceive) is an extension of the One rather than a collection of parts. It's a subtle but very important difference. Apologies if this irritates you. > 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.-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%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.
