I think emotions are mental constructs that begin with feeling, and then are heaped with repetitive experience memories and personality complexes. Very different than the pure feeling of the Sufi whirling. I actually have a copy of Sartre's: The Emotions, Outline of a Theory here. He was a better Existentialist than Phenomonologist. Dry stuff.
On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 2:10:39 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > I was thinking, Molly, that some people hoard emotions and get very bitter > and twisted - the old 'stamp collecting' notion of TA. One possible > thought on the autistic mind is that it is so sensitive to emotion it has > to cope by shutdown. This is intense world theory. I like this in > principle, but some suggested treatments are truly awful (stimulus > deprivation in infancy). There is also 'extreme male brain' theory, > applicable to females as brain structure is not simply gendered. > > Imagination has long been central to 'theory of mind' - autistics can lack > any clue other people think and feel like them. The idea that they might > be under 'sensory attack' rather than deprivation would explain a lot of > what I feel amonst other people or even watching newsrooms. I find people > in rituals particularly daunting as my first feeling is disgust. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 5:35:01 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> You imagined the hurricane. Butterflies are in pupal stage. Unless the >> RAF is using them due to budget cuts. >> >> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 5:31:19 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>> >>> Remember, in Flatland women are just lines, we men triangles and on to >>> upper-caste hexagons. The problem is that the lines are sharpened to a >>> point at both ends and entirely dangerous. Luud will only worry when you >>> sat something sensible, which as we know is profoundly non-human. >>> >>> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 5:08:33 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh understand the defect human subroutine.. i hope Luud never catches >>>> on.. >>>> >>>> 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 6:03 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination >>>> >>>> It's not a spellcheck error Allan - you'll be running the 'look more >>>> like a defective human' subroutine. >>>> >>>> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:55:12 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>>> >>>>> lol i think so .. maybe that is the funny sound I keep hearing.. >>>>> you would think they could correct the constant spelling errors.. >>>>> >>>>> 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 5:13 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination >>>>> >>>>> Artificial Intelligence and more recent linguistics has reached the >>>>> same conclusion.. Do you find yourself beeping a lot these days Allan? >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:02:55 PM UTC, 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. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> 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.
