I didn't even know who Creflo Dollar was until he had an event in the center. Big bucks indeed for a bunch of crap. The center hosts (or rents space) to a surprising number of large religious services. I had to have someone repeat his name and then spell it to me, it made no sense. (Or does it) It reminded me of the Jim/Tammy Fae Baker scam whose trial and prison sentence is the only reason it caught my attention. I wonder if folks sending money to these guys is liken to buying indulgences from the Catholic Church. Confession is free, and, once you figure it out, so is forgiveness.
If we're buying a plane, we'll have to get the Bentley four wheel drive I just saw on Top Gear. The ONLY way to get through a Michigan winter! At the end of the show, they recommended a Range Rover when all was said and done, so I guess my Landy will suffice until then. On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 12:59:41 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > You are probably missing the point Allan. > > If I suggest we should change Molly Brogan Enterprises into the following, > would you believe me? > Pastor who owns two Rolls-Royces pleads for 200,000 church supporters to > donate '$300 or more' EACH so he can buy a $65MILLION private jet 'to > better spread the gospel of Jesus Christ' > Reverend Creflo Dollar is the head of World Changers Church International > The 53-year-old preaches 'that God wants to bless the faithful with > earthly riches' and the church has about 30,000 members > He has an estimated net worth of $27 million > Has appealed online for 200,000 people to donate $300 so he can buy > Gulfstream G650, worth $65 million and favored by billionaires > Says the plane is essential for him to 'reach a lost and dying world for > the Lord Jesus Christ' > > The dork also beat up his own son. Anyway Moll, there's a waiting list > unto 2017 for Gulfsteams. So I've budgeted in the immediately available > Avantair Piaggio Avanti on a timeshare.. > > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:28:48 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: >> >> Whoa Neil I have never considered you self centered implies or >> otherwise.. if you received emails to that extent they are not from me. >> >> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين >> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: archytas <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 5:10 PM >> Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination >> >> Allan - I spent nearly half my adult life trying to understand the Other. >> I might be offended by your continued assertions I am self-centred, if I >> didn't realise either: >> 1/ you are an idiot >> 2/ the people studying with me were chronic cases of self-centredness >> 3/ the whole world exists in Molly'd head and she invented Gabby to >> reprogram our sub-routines >> 4/ and you actually like someone who has offered me a free lunch >> 5/ I suffer the delusion of liking you >> 6/ there are hundreds more possibilities, including you being a decent >> old cove >> 7/ Molly might not speak to me if you weren't here and I've always had >> this thing about nice Irish girls ... >> >> One of the issues in imagination is the extent to which it is possible to >> share. As Molly says much in the public domain is constructed rather than >> created or even honestly blurted. We can even ask if Tony is more creative >> than an episode of a soap opera. I already know he is, which isn't the >> point. One can imagine what we call creative is rule-bound, even that we >> are machines. One can also imagine, that if we knew more about rules, we >> would not be bound by them. Tony is probably better at plumbing than me >> too - you just have to hate the guy! And younger - what a complete creep! >> Life is rather better admiring talent. >> >> Sartre had it that emotions exist without explanation, a dull >> non-scientific view. When Tony put forward his last picture, my first >> fleeting and real image in my virtual world was of a roulette machine. >> Soon, eye-brain interactions told me it was not. Emotions are fleeting >> too - hate, jealousy can turn to relish of the Other. >> >> >> >> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 2:16:46 PM UTC, 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. >> > -- --- 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.
