You don't like many of my links, that's OK, don't mind. Yoga, Vedanta and Kundalini, as mystical paths, all take feeling into the higher levels of consciousness. I don't think the practice of the path matters. We all have our own. I think that knowing the feeling, and returning through the feeling, is an important way to explore and return to the highest states. I think the highest consensus state may be simple and silent as Allan suggests, and I agree that it is how it feels to me also.
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 1:08:24 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > I think Neville gets nearly everything wrong, proceeding by repeated > assertions. He lacks a lot you have Molly. Tony and Rufus is instructive > on who is imaging whom. > > On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:50:43 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >> >> A state of feeling as the spark of life's continuity is worthy of a lot >> of discussion and contemplation http://www.feelingisthesecret.org/ >> and Neville Goddard based his life's work on the notion that putting >> ourselves into a state of consciousness with feeling is the mechanism for >> the manifestation of reality. You will have to forgive, because he is also >> a Christian mystic, siting biblical quotes with the interpretation that >> they were clues to this secret. >> >> Not sure it was such a secret. Every mystical tradition says the same >> thing in some form. And science does seem to be catching up. I am ever in >> search of the original edition of Einstein's "The World As I See It" that >> was part of my university's rare book section and I could often be caught >> sitting in the isle reading it for inspiration. There are many subsequent >> editions, none as good. He was a brilliant intellect and spirit. >> >> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>> >>> The philosophy of an imagination looking outwards is fascinating, though >>> relies on rather behaviourist tricks in some guises. Ludwig Fleck had some >>> good stuff on what was out now being in, but whose is it questioning. It's >>> interesting we had Feynman (who also loved his bee, wacky baccy and >>> womanising), Waddington, Medawar, Horton, Soddy and many others while >>> social constructivists told us we were 'heartless positivists'. The wrong >>> ideas on science still pertain, I think conflated with heartless >>> bureaucracy and bossy versions of religion. >>> >>> The 'state of feeling' is worthy of a lot of discussion and >>> contemplation. >>> >>> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 2:43:50 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>> >>>> I've saved the paper to read after my nap, Neil. Thanks. Scanning it >>>> made me realize how hooked I am on visual organization with header styles, >>>> bullet points and all the other nonsense. And how ridiculous I am for it. >>>> I'm also intrigued that the paper references Feynman who I love, mostly >>>> because he plays bongos and loves his orange juice: >>>> https://youtu.be/2Ks8gsK22PA <https://youtu.be/2Ks8gsK22PA> >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:11:15 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have an internal movie screen, though its presence is intermittent, >>>>> sometimes glorious and once traumatic. The way we process information >>>>> has >>>>> multiple logics, including the way memory is not accurate in order to let >>>>> us put different jigsaw pictures together for multiple futures. The >>>>> universe itself may be doing something like this, with some having time >>>>> backwards. >>>>> >>>>> In a more simple way, imagination allows us to think things through, >>>>> and personally I try what seems a reverse of Molly's embodiment - that of >>>>> the embodiment of the human in machine. The idea is not to create >>>>> androids, but rather imagination that can take us past current >>>>> limitations >>>>> and provide enhancement for human being. Imagination is one way to test >>>>> in >>>>> virtual reality and not get one's fingers burned. There are accounts of >>>>> how >>>>> experiencing a Van Gogh played a role in constructing the model of a >>>>> galaxy. I even see similarities between Molly's treatment of >>>>> non-believers >>>>> and attempts to make the semantic web compatible in difference. >>>>> >>>>> Fascinated by kaleidoscopes as a kid. Fascinated later by how >>>>> machines could repeat simple equations at vast speed and produce patterns >>>>> (fractals, chaos) doing something so mundane, yet rather like all 7 >>>>> billion >>>>> of us putting different number values into 2x = y at the same time and >>>>> linking up the pattern. Imagination has a lot to do with pattern >>>>> spotting. >>>>> If Molly looks to spiritual awakening, I tend to look for cosmic code. >>>>> Her methods may be introspective, but what was more introspective than >>>>> Socrates' claim the knowledge was already in there and could be found >>>>> through the right questions? I look out, though suspect these >>>>> distinctions >>>>> lapse in good sense, compassion and non-jealous integration. >>>>> >>>>> Tony turns some plumbing pipes and a mask into a static 'creature' >>>>> that 'moves' with perspective and focus. I let it ride in my mind - >>>>> though >>>>> I could just hate him for his talent (I don't). I more the kind of chap >>>>> who would borrow any left over pipe to keep the washing machine running. >>>>> >>>>> Any looking out is always experienced in the internal-virtual. We >>>>> think the universe is beige. Space may be fluidic, elastic (more Hooke >>>>> than Newton), potentially catapult-like so we could evade the limitations >>>>> of space-time by standing still in moving space. Imaging outwards was a >>>>> William Blake theme - http://ttj.sagepub.com/content/25/4/495.full.pdf >>>>> - dramatic unveiling of the inter- action of varied human personalities, >>>>> with its gradual focusing of atten- tion upon the two major protagonists, >>>>> and with its brilliantly skillful dis- closure of a symbolism which leads >>>>> the imagination outwards in widening ... experiments in gender, both >>>>> socially and artistically, can remind us all of the constant bravery >>>>> necessary to force the universe of the imagination outwards. >>>>> >>>>> Albert Einstein suggested that the elusive, additional element needed >>>>> for high achievement in science is a "state of feeling" in the >>>>> researcher, >>>>> which he called "akin to that of the religious worship per or of one who >>>>> is >>>>> in love," arising not from a deliberate decision or program but from a >>>>> personal necessity. Others are more down to earth. With eloquent >>>>> simplicity >>>>> P. W. Bridgman wrote, "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, >>>>> is >>>>> nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds >>>>> barred." >>>>> But as good as they are, neither remark nor the occasional anecdotal >>>>> confession is much help for discovering what we are after. Peter Medawar >>>>> put it this way, though a bit harshly: "It is of no use looking to >>>>> scientific papers, for they not merely conceal but actively misrepresent >>>>> the reasoning that goes into the work they describe... .Only unstudied >>>>> evidence will do-and that means listening at the keyhole." >>>>> >>>>> Free paper here - >>>>> http://eppl604-autism-and-creativity.wmwikis.net/file/view/20013446.pdf/201762974/20013446.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Of course, imagining anyone will read so as to shake themselves from >>>>> non-participation is imaginary. The self-importance of the petty gossip >>>>> may be rather like a rabbit hole world. What we can imagine has already >>>>> been warped by what is so easy to soak up from the 'garbage in' system, >>>>> including not being able to get over oneself as the centre of the >>>>> universe. >>>>> I was taught about the irrational and spasmodic nature of science from >>>>> books written in and before the 60's. Molly is closer to this than the >>>>> frauds pretending science is rational. >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 12:02:58 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea of embodied imagination (Jungian) introduces the notion that >>>>>> through dreams, imagination presents us with a complete reality that is >>>>>> different from our waking reality, not constrained by logic or >>>>>> rationality, >>>>>> and based more on our individual archetypal system of symbols. My latest >>>>>> thinking is that we carry this system into our waking conscious life, >>>>>> but >>>>>> are less aware of it because of the constraints our rationality imposes >>>>>> when awake. This system may be what calls us into a spiritual awakening >>>>>> to >>>>>> more fully integrate all levels of consciousness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Several years ago I was invited (all expenses paid) to the Lucidity >>>>>> Institute <http://lucidity.com/> in Hawaii for a month long study in >>>>>> dreaming and consciousness. There have been a few invitations I regret >>>>>> not >>>>>> feeling free enough to accept in my life and this is one, but my mother >>>>>> in >>>>>> law was in hospice in our home and those love ties reign. Even as a kid >>>>>> I >>>>>> paid attention to my dreams and it has been for me, a life long >>>>>> fascination. It has led me to understand that there are states of >>>>>> consciousness in both waking and sleeping that are the same peak states, >>>>>> just the movie on the screen has a different tone, like the difference >>>>>> between Brooks' Blazing Saddles and Polanski's McBeth. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that imagination is the mechanism that puts the movie on >>>>>> screen in all circumstances. >>>>>> >>>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
