That is actually very valuable Molly. I can't read the stuff, but have got that way with almost all text now (yet read far more than most). Life manifesting as very different is important and is a big part of anarchism and marxism - both having a lot of Christianity and Platonism in them. False institutions would fall - though David Graeber has been touching on our love of the secret pleasures of bureaucracy, exemplified in video games and the real bureaucracy of 'free-trade'. The reason I can't read Neville is I agree very quickly with the need for something else, something radically other - I get the same in Habermas and others - and something of a vision of walking towards the alien horde, Bible held high. I am just not that mystic or solipsist.
There were times before human imagination, at least in the incomplete science fantasy. One can draw a long line from Augustine, his contemporary Islamic thinkers and on to Popper's World 3 on what becomes eternal. The construction of the public domain is bound by simple laws we can embody in AI. Some people have quite amazing copying processes regarded as imaginative, yet easily create the various viral claques around Jihad or cute pussies. I suspect we lack the language for proper discussion. The imagination is likely to be chronically under-developed, most confusing it with libidinal security or kicks. On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 1:31:06 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > I think much of what is in the public domain is crafted instead of > created, and crafted to sell, so crafted to gain audience action (that > converts to money for someone.) That takes skill, but little imagination. > > I originally discovered Neville when I was exploring the notion of > resurrection, and he wrote a lecture called Resurrection that is I think, > his masterpiece and I have yet to understand. Like Hermann Hesse's Glass > Bead Game, the culmination of his life's work. I read it over and over and > it means something different each time and I understand it more over time. > My husband and I both then read the body of his work from beginning to end > and could understand better the development of his life's work. When > Neville moved from his earlier message that "Your Faith is Your Fortune" to > "Immortal Man" he began losing his audience, at least those who were > looking for get rich quick schemes or mind over matter techniques. His work > moves his audience from duality (The Law) manifest to awareness of our > infinite being, where life manifests for us very differently (The Promise). > "All that you behold, though it appears without, it is within in your own > wonderful human imagination of which this world of mortality is but a > shadow." > > The wonderful thing about Neville, I think, is that he puts out the notion > that the Lord is our imagination. A bold notion that left him lecturing to > the walls at the end of his career. Living in the world of Cesar, or > mortality, or duality, (The Law) we are chasing the laws of cause and > effect that govern us. Recognition is all that is required of immortal man > for manifestation, or non-dual awareness (The Promise) and imagination is > the instrument within us all that takes us there. Because Neville sees > every bible verse as an instruction on using imagination for divine > revelation, those that cannot grasp this are lost in the rhetoric and > connotation of "religion." For him, it is about imagination, not religion. > Because I agree with him wholeheartedly on this one point, I find his body > of work palatable. > > All of the christian mystics that I've read see scripture as a diagram for > living. Neville is distinctive because of his treatment of imagination. I > recognize truth in this notion, because my own imagination creates and > reduces to simplicity for my own divine breakthroughs and recognition. In > sleep and waking life. > > I am certainly not advocating his work as the be all end all for a study > or discussion on imagination. But this one idea of his may be critical to > any intimate dialogue of the subject. > > > > On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 7:56:54 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> I guess my questions generally relate to critical absorption rather than >> the passive. We have to know more about why so much in the public domain >> is so bland, copied,ice-cream, beer, pets - and what imagination this >> feeds. We might wonder where Habermas' communicative rationality >> (whatever) shows up - where an imaginative lifeworld exists. >> >> Much that many feel as imaginative is actually produced by a few simple >> rules. These can be embodied in machines, even to the point of narrative >> generation. What can we imagine imaginative in the next action flick? Was >> one war film made in 1943 and endlessly copied since? The mystics have had >> a long run and there is certainly a core. I wonder on potential free play, >> rather than institutionalized Utopia of imagination rules we embody in >> genre and machine, whether metal or internal-organic. >> >> >> On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:59:28 PM UTC, 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.
