Kids may be in imagination to survive what we do to them in classrooms. On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:17:02 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > 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.
