While I agree that the human experience is quite complex and these seem to fail to adress all aspects, the word "appropriate" bothers me a bit as does the word "impose". The basis for the roots of experientialism is that one is responsible for one's own experience. What is acceptable or imposed is up to individual choice, though some experientialists may dissagree with this. I find that this is true in all cultures and societies even though it may not be on the surface. There are many illustrations of this throughout history where communal change was brought about by the choices and experience of an individual and hence a shift in consciosness. The ramifications of individual choice are anti-cultural and anti-societal so until the human experience is broadly affected, communal change relents. More to my point is that nearly or more than eighty percent of the worlds population believe in some sort of religion and hence turn to clerical science for individual resolution to conflict. So again I say; What is acceptable or imposed is up to individual choice.
On Mar 18, 9:41 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > There are often deep similarities in apparent differences Dark. > Clerical science seems to want to impose routines in thought that are > not appropriate to much we experience, failing in its own terms to be > reflexive and self-examining. > > On 18 Mar, 17:22, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Interesting that you should say "special relativity certainly changes > > alot" in context with common sense! I tends to lend merit to the > > fractal dimensions of the discussion. I am beginning to see a "Kotch > > curve" develop here or perhaps a Mandelbrot image, eh! Without going > > way out there I will say that belief, truth and science seem to fall > > into a constant. Though they are ever changing, they always display > > similar liknesses. Still the area remains finite and the parimeter > > grows infinitely... yet the area never is greater than the big > > picture!!? Isn't chaos fun? Only time can be a proving ground for such > > things and over the course of time much is learned and much is lost. > > Truly it is easier to identify the outlanders more so than the > > constants. Perhaps we will be able to account for them all some day. > > Still it holds true that people, in discussing such things, tend to > > focus on that which does not agree rather than looking at similarities > > in beliefs, truths etc... and there is where I can also see the dark > > matter or flow as you described. Clerical science? Please explain to > > me more what exactly you mean by this. > > > On Mar 17, 8:19 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The viewpoint of special relativity certainly changes a lot Molly, > > > though most don't grok and ask questions still fixed in their common > > > sense. Much the same is true for science and critical reasoning > > > generally, tending I think to 'revelation' of how little we know and > > > what it is safe to try and build on. This 'place of safety' is > > > difficult to achieve and maintain, a key question in ethics little > > > heard. I am not so sure about absolutes, though we do work with them > > > and constants, often only in convention even if deduction and > > > observation rule out many and leave us with few. The universe remains > > > in need of metaphor in human cognition. There appears to be a massive > > > dark flow, moving in excess of a million miles an hour (close or > > > possibly above light speed) to 'somewhere else'. Our own universe may > > > be a 'pea in a pod on a plant' - we may be waiting to to 'born'. > > > Science to me has largely been about something bigger that lets detail > > > become unnecessary as it can always be 'seen' in the larger theory or > > > 'worked out'. My own feeling is that the greater impulse of this > > > thinking is socio-genetically resisted, the answers not lying in > > > clerical science (from Vam). > > > > On 17 Mar, 13:24, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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.
