Imaging the different is tough. I heard a teenage novelist talking on Radio 4 the other day. She had interesting things to say on the imposition of love relationships through adult myths. These days I suspect anything libidinal and relations to god through such. In many respects I have to consider Molly as Other - yet this is instantly ridiculous as we share so much. "Even you Al"! Molly always leaves equalfinality - many roads to the same outcome. There is a childishness in some of her writing - something that might be taken as an insult - but that I would mean as praise from gratitude. I don't do the same literature, but find a lot of the same things, at least as construed in my imagination. One thing we need some imagination on, as Francis pointed to years ago, is religion that doesn't need to make its fantasies so crushing of doubt and as reliant on myth as realty rather than useful dream.
We are not very honest about love, In a sense I love everyone and am anybody's, Yet to relate like this is impossible, other than in experiment. Plato was really writing about this and all a Guardian would have to have and drop to bring in a leadership for all in a dispassionate condition. In the end he saw corruption as inevitable. It is hard to work out feelings as we are actually in a constant state of repressing them. I think we are stuck with them in a co-evolutionary arms' race we need to leave and that rationality is an imaginary dream of where we need to be. I have future robots blissing out on rationality. They need an organic override chip to prevent this. On emotion generally I am wary of empathy. it tends to leave disgust in me as I see people ritualising. I am not autistic. I know most people don't even perceive the world like me though. Understanding perception is probably needed to understand imagination, to the extent we ever could. Teenage lasts until around 25 in terms of brains. Autism might even be a move towards the end of 'false empathy' and gooey human relationships. On Saturday, 14 March 2015 00:33:18 UTC, Molly wrote: > > Our youngest son is one of the smartest people I've ever known, but has a > hard time with feelings in the way that you describe. He seems to get to > the mystical epiphanies through intellect, and my husband can follow him > there in the blink of an eye, and they talk through it. He is in his fifth > year of university and terrified of finishing, still unable to see a place > in the world for himself. From all accounts he has always processed > differently than most. While his high school freshman class was reading > catcher in the rye, he sat in class reading Joyce's Ulysses, board with the > discussion of a book it took him an hour to read. Helping him to > transition into a productive live is going to take more finesse than it > took with the first three, and much less that it ever took for him to > understand the notion of enlightenment and the path to his own peak > experience. > > Sharing feeling is a whole new ball game, yet, because (like the sacred > heart of Christ) there is an enlightened place that we all share, sharing > feeling can be sacred. Anyone experiencing the "falling in love" feeling > knows this. Life expands and peaks. Folks who have a hard time with empathy > must find a different way. > > On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 6:59:28 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> It's more that I prefer what you say and demonstrate Molly. We have to >> hope in something simple, though it may emerge from complex work, perhaps >> the simplexity angle. The imagination, in many childhood studies, is >> connected with deception and, of course, in the wilderness. Otherwise, >> without nanoprobes we will never get Allan up to speed as a true heretic! >> Neville Goddard creates 'black boxes I don't need - they communicate quite >> well in a compelling logic but I'm left outside it. You don't do this and >> are more like Abbott, with his sense of humour. >> >> Thanks for the film spoiler Allan - I did try it for 5 minutes but felt >> it lacked imagination. I couldn't read Terry Pratchett or Harry Potter, >> even Lewis Carroll. Autistic people often lack the imagination we use in >> understanding others and perhaps the feelings to work back through. We >> don't all have to be singers from the same page. Religion can build >> socially approved epistemic authority, but needs to leave critical space. >> If we look outwards, much claimed as product of the imagination is dull >> copy. >> >> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:39:11 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>> >>> 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.
