I'm good with stub axles. On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 8:52:58 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > No I prefer to make my own sausage much taster . Right now i am having > difficulty collapsing the black hole in the center of our galaxy so that I > will understand how to remove the stub axel from the wheel maybe it is > easier to comprehend within the reality dimension from which we originated. > Or the active imaginations of common sleep reality.. > > 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 9:42 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination > > Preferably not a Frankfurter. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 8:29:22 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > If it was Biggly Banger, maybe we all come from the same sausage? > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 8:13:56 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > I like fire works as long as thee is no need to explain or what makes them > go bang.. > > 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 9:02 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination > > Nah! You were always around as I remember! In constructor theory, the > term 'in the beginning' is one we try to be sceptical of. Biggly Bang is > looking more and more like a symbol like infinity.I prefer a 'breaking > containment' theory, a bit like Molly's. Magic has long has such too. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 7:44:57 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > According to christian theology in the beginning was God and the word > was with in God. The Word begat the universe.. > > What can i say except the Total Presence has a highly active imagination.. > long before I came into existence.. > > 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 8:38 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination > > How anything is made of nothing certainly exercises the imagination - > maybe we have to stop thinking about creation as a necessary part if this? > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 7:21:54 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > To try and understand the presents you have to use your imagination to get > ideas to make sense.. an example might me trying understand how everything > is made from the essence of the Presence and separate at the same time if i > can visualize the Presence being our solar system.. i then can imagine each > planet being totally separate and at the same time total dependent on solar > system to exist. > > 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 5:10 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination > > 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 > > ...
-- --- 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.
