Your last sentence is a great one, Allan. How is your imagination used in what you describe there?
On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 12:02:55 PM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: > > He sounds like a lot of people I have listen to over the years. More than > a few have played it for the money angle, sadly.. for them my favorite > bible verses are "He went and hung himself . . . Go do thou likewise." Let > see the first part comes from Judas betrayal of Jesus and the second part > from the story of the good sarmeratan (sp). There is a lot of crafting to > reach the desired goal as i tried to demonstrate. > > There is a lot of guidance for spiritual development... but i have problem > with the every verse rhetoric..especially in english.. the reasoning is > the english language structure is based off the paragraph or the complete > thought. Often times the sentence creates only a partial idea. To many > people try to justify their bad behavior and actions as spiritual guidance.. > > There are good guidelines ten commandments. Jesus love your neighbor as > yourself .. stories demonstrating examples of proper behavior but not > written step by step instruction. Recently the perspective came forward > that there is a highway to hell and a staircase to Heaven.. that just > demonstrates the expected traffic flow. > > For me spirituality is developing and demonstrating the soul's connection > with the Presence.. that connection determines your position within the > mandala of the Totality of the Presence. Which is beyond my ability to > comprehend. > > تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين > Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 2:31 PM > Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination > > 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. > -- --- 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.
