Three cheers on that one Molly. On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:12:55 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > I suspect we do lack language for proper discussion. If schools taught > kids to recognize and access their imaginations, the results might be very > different than what they are putting out now. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 10:16:46 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> 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.
