Your concerns about validation, perception and memory are good ones, Neil, and certainly apply in dualistic states where right and wrong are important. My memories of my childrens' baptism (when and where) have been brought into question, as the evidence bares out something different than my memory. It only becomes important when strolling down memory lane with my kids or trying to access their records. To be sure, much has happened in all our lives since then and it is not a wonder that they have no conscious memory or it and mine is skewed. However errors are also made in records and books (some intentional), and certainly, much of what what is on the internet is erroneous.
This brings us to the realization that value, mind and especially memory are no longer essential to non dual states, and I think that your micro discussion with Orn is being conducted from these two different views, leaving you comparing apples and oranges in many respects. This is not meant to imply that value, mind and memory have no place in the non dual as indeed they are integrated there. However, relative truth is no longer the pivotal point, and cause and effect operate differently, as cause is expanded to be all inclusive. The importance of details, although there, seem to fall away to a greater truth that connects us all. The great mystics tell us, (and a few current such minds debate) that when our viewpoint changes, our entire reality changes and all that is in it. Yet the changes are imperceptible because the change is complete. Focusing on the accuracy to the details that will change as we go in this regard seems futile, except that it leads us to the greater truth, the absolute truth that is constant in the ever changing world. On Mar 17, 7:32 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I came across a trivial example of 'what I think is true' today. > Reading some dire book on rugby Sue bought me for 40 pence, I found a > story on 'Hancock's Try'. I have a memory of the try, scored in a > dire Calcutta Cup game (Rugby Union between England and Scotland). I > was a young fan then, just playing my first games at school due to our > Cambridge educated headmaster converting us oiks from soccer to more > manly war-preparation regulated violence. By accident, this was the > beginning of my preparation for the working-class Rugby League, by far > the superior game back then as you got match fees for playing, not > just bruises. > Scotland were winning 3 - 0. It was a mud heap and raining most of > the match. Scotland, much as at Derby in 1745, were about to see > England off, but bottled the last attack as they managed under the > French trained Pretender back then. The English fly-half actually > passed the ball and Hancock set off on his long, exhausting run, > chased by some hapless Scot who managed to force him into the left > corner, making the goal kick difficult. I remember Hancock being > injured and botching the goal kick, so the game ended in a draw. In > the book, he is reported as saying he didn't remember anything after > the try until some supporter offered him a dram as he plodded off. > > Did he, as my memory suggests, take the missed kick? Someone must > have missed it as the score was 3 - 3. How would we confirm my > memory? The answer lies in the BBC video record. I don't give much > of a toot about the actual answer, rather that there is one, and the > video would confirm it. I am not much concerned either about the use > of technology in confirming sports decisions. It does strike me > though, that in many important areas, there is evidence as > incontravertable as the BBC video in this case, that we don't get to > see about virtually all decisions we should be making in the light of > evidence. This raises deep concerns about 'what I think is true'. > > This doesn't matter much to me when, say, Orn talks of 'such rays > Neil' (I take and want to take Bill on trust and am happy he is > talking about some potential we might share, if differently); but it > matters a lot to me in terms of the political drivel and idiot > ideologies foisted on me where I know a more scientific and honest > approach is possible and feel constrained by the dud world-views and > egos of others. Whilst I am all for imagination, I find myself having > to do too much of it in trying to discover what I think I know because > evidence that could be made plain is not. > on me in areas where I know > On 15 Mar, 15:48, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Glad you could get a chuckle out of it. DB > > > Pat, I know you don't have internet at home and I guess you are > > considering that God is 'limiting' your ability right now for some > > reason. But we have come into a new week and so while you are at work > > and you get the chance and if God 'affords' you the time, please > > reply. Thanks Matey! > > > On Mar 12, 4:26 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "I'll call it Chimpsky."-Slip > > > > Is that your take on Darwinism? LMAO! > > > > On Mar 12, 11:20 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ah, but I can feel the air and technically it can be seen because it > > > > is full of micro particles, some of which we refer to as pollution; > > > > you are familiar with the London Fog I'm sure. > > > > > Playing God are we? Only the drips that you allow? lol Well then I > > > > can only surmise from what you proffer and of course only use the > > > > limited knowledge that is afforded me by the Him. > > > > > Well I thought you believed in the Father Son Holy Ghost bit so that > > > > would make big daddy the third party, being that two of them are one. > > > > > Test and then judge. Judge for what and for what reason? He doesn't > > > > find it fun you say, and of course I guess you speak on behalf of the > > > > judge. What you don't see is that you are constantly trying to find > > > > reason to support something that is simply a belief, one that remains > > > > enigmatic, beyond reproach and without any course of proof or > > > > disproof. > > > > > I see everyone living in the same world with some, such as yourself, > > > > attributing experiences, good or bad, to a deity, a creator who by > > > > design places lives in atrocious living circumstance as a means of > > > > testing and judging. Tell that to someone being cruelly tortured for > > > > no purpose. One can find justification in anything by simply adopting > > > > this externalization of human experience. I might feel entirely > > > > different if it all came out of some new discovery that actually > > > > established the existence of such a being. However, being that it is > > > > based on ancient superstitions and myths of desert dwelling people > > > > with limited knowledge and probably one of the few myths out of the > > > > many that stayed the course of history, yet to be formally dispelled, > > > > I would have to remain skeptical of it and keep it in the box of > > > > fanciful figments of man's conjured conclusions to life's > > > > wonderment. I might add that the monotheist religious persuasions > > > > all originated in the same region and have striking similarities. > > > > Natives in the jungle are no less fervent believers of totem gods than > > > > you are of yours and the "Thousands" of others out there including > > > > spiritualists and cultists. What you choose to believe is no more > > > > valid than pet rocks. Truth is I could spend a few hours putting > > > > together my own religion and probably get followers willing to do > > > > anything to appease my god of all gods. I'll call it Chimpsky. lol > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 12 Mar, 02:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively, you've got the cart before the horse. We > > > > > > > > > humans have > > > > > > > > > knowledge because a subset of God's all-encompassing > > > > > > > > > knowledge is > > > > > > > > > afforded us by Him. <<Pat > > > > > > > > > Supposition entirely and from where you proceed in order to > > > > > > > > construct > > > > > > > > the rest of the design. Knowledge 'afforded' us would in that > > > > > > > > account > > > > > > > > be more uniform, unilateral without discrepancy or the conflict > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > false knowledge and true knowledge as in the case of Gallileo > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > reveal itself to be more so, instinctive knowledge. <<Slip > > > > > > > > Not if you aren't afforded that. And galileo was afforded what > > > > > > > he was > > > > > > > afforded. <<Pat > > > > > > > Again your basing your response totally on your own supposition that > > > > > > the only way we can gain knowledge is by the doling out of allowed > > > > > > levels of understanding and ability to learn by some imaginary > > > > > > deity. > > > > > > <<Slip > > > > > > > > >We have in record > > > > > > > > perceived and calculated knowledge by experience, subsequently > > > > > > > > failing > > > > > > > > at times to perceive actual truths and bounding forward on > > > > > > > > faulty > > > > > > > > conjecture until, through alternate experience, truth > > > > > > > > emerged.<<Slip > > > > > > > > Therefore demonstrating our limited knowledge.<< Pat > > > > > > > You are saying absolutely nothing here. It demonstrates how we have > > > > > > struggled along on our own since our primordial beginnings, how we > > > > > > accumulated knowledge from experience and discovery. There is no > > > > > > indication that we were allowed to have some knowledge or the > > > > > > limitation of knowledge. <<Slip > > > > > > You've assumed, without proof, that we are alone and that God is not > > > > > with us. Just because you cannot see God with your eyes, doesn't mean > > > > > He's not present. You don't see the air around you. > > > > > > > > >We > > > > > > > > can't simply dismiss or disregard thousands of years of > > > > > > > > floundering on > > > > > > > > myths and notions in an attempt to establish the Harrington > > > > > > > > Theorem of > > > > > > > > deity knowledge which postulates an imparting of human > > > > > > > > knowledge by a > > > > > > > > third party source presented as the gate keeper of all > > > > > > > > knowledge. Slip > > > > > > > > Which is not my postulate. Rather, I postulate that the One > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > us as third party items where He is the one reality that holds > > > > > > > the lot > > > > > > > and that lot exceed the addition of our allotments. <<Pat > > > > > > > It is so your postulate, it is exactly what you keep reiterating. > > > > > > Allotments? Its the same as before with a new word. Now your > > > > > > saying > > > > > > we were created as imbeciles who would receive little tokens of > > > > > > knowledge every once in a while? Like God's assistant runs over and > > > > > > says: "God, the humans are very cold and freezing, what should we > > > > > > do?" and God answers "Give them the knowledge of how to start fire, > > > > > > but nothing more, I want them to suffer for my pleasure, I enjoy > > > > > > seeing those little creatures I created suffer". Slip > > > > > > LOL!! It's always nice to be told what I think by someone who has > > > > > never met me. You don't know the whole of my theory, only the drips > > > > > that I give you. Do you think God treats you differently than I do? > > > > > What I objected to as "not a part of my theory" was your reference to > > > > > a 'third party'. THAT is not a part of my theory. There is only > > > > > One. How can there be a third party if there is no second? > > > > > > > > > Further allowing this persuasion to continue as even remotely > > > > > > > > valid I > > > > > > > > would assume that the gate keeper is in utter bliss and ecstasy > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > withholding knowledge that would alleviate a great deal of > > > > > > > > death and > > > > > > > > suffering at the hands of horrid diseases. Slip > > > > > > > > You would find no cures if there were no diseases. Think a little > > > > > > > about that. <<Pat > > > > > > > Think about that? What is there to think about, that is absurd. If > > > > > > there were no diseases we would have to worry about > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
