The statement does get to the crux. Have saved the pdf to my desktop for a quiet time, thanks Neil. Gave the final reading to Scientific Imagination yesterday and can appreciate the model. Was thinking this morning that imagination is required for the formation of perception, belief, opinion, emotion and so many of our basic constructs that its constant use may be why we take it for granted, like our heart beat or good health, and don't consider it much. When the mechanics of it go awry it can prevent that partnership and cooperation. Maybe this is where religion fills in the gap, not requiring us to be firing on all cylinders to participate. We can confess, say the rosary or the stations of the cross, sit blithely in mass, and feel on some level that we are in cooperation. The feeling brings along those incapable of more. That doesn't excuse the politics of the church. Certainly not.
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:30:34 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > This might interest you Molly - > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/zygo.12138/ - it more > or less states my view before I consider practical, social impediments in > existing conditions. > > If you haven't got time to read it, I should say it sounds a lot like you > to me and ends thus: > > The universe is still in the making. One of the ways humans can realize > that they make the universe is by engaging in science and/or religion. What > those who take up the challenge offered by James will experience is that > they can share their uncertainty and ignorance with their God—who they can > intimate and connect with in a social relation—and share their suffering. > > Theologically, James inspires readings of “omnipotence” and “omniscience” > in which God chooses to be vulnerable and thinks also through feeling with > us —while being both Other and our inner deep source of hope. Practically, > engaging in scientific or religious practices may create opportunities for > individuals to realize that they are co-creators of the world in > partnership with God (who looks to the world for its cooperation), in full > awareness of uncertainty and ignorance and filled with the emotion of > wonder. > > > > > On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:50:00 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > There remain issues on whether kids are really imaginative or creative, in > societies that remain in the Stone Age, maybe like ours. > > On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:42:32 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > Lovely and insightive Molly. On e might venture to Berkeley and his oft > misunderstood falling tree. The less naive imagination from the stochastic > movement of bits of pollen grains to a journey into the stars with tensor > equations derived from how a bridge holds together is maybe a bit > different. It would be interesting to think, from the good materialist > perspective, what people could imagine free of poverty-poverty-threat > motivations. I am not good with kids like this, though do manage not to > shoot the ones who tie my shoelaces together (I wear slip-ons). Science > fiction prototyping is something kids aren't bad at - adults usually > stunningly incapable. It has struck me that I never really explain what > the technique is to kids and maybe explaining it to adults is a mistake, > though I am a veteran of brainstorming with the brain dead. > > Something that has been intriguing me of late might be called 'the rules > of paradise'. In material terms (other than lusts after 4-wheel-drive > Bentleys) "global warming changes everything morally" and the limited > paradise of a secure world for all would have to have new rules - many of > which run against current values (population restriction is an obvious one > - think off disasters in China so intuitively cruel here - and even > eugenics). You might not be allowed all your children and Tony and I have > touched on our children (grandson in my case) who might have bee denied > existence as we their pleasures (etc - if I can conclude something so > sensitive so abruptly). > > Imaging the future and bringing "future memories" to bear in present > thinking - which may be my take on your Neville. Some of what needs > discussing is not pleasant, but neither is a trip to Mars for people who go > unequipped with spacesuits, sending a message there is no oxygen there > (little as I'm sure Tony would correct). Brave New World was a rather poor > attempt. You are no pusher Molly - though "Top Gear" has a certain > connotation .... > > On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 12:23:25 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > I wonder how our lives would change if the majority of people understood > and used their imaginations. I know Neil is right when he points out that > the education systems discourage it. I sat in my youngest son's first grade > class and asked them to imagine a poem as I read it to them Then I asked > them to think about their mothers, and asked how many could see a picture > of their mothers in their mind, even though she wasn't here. 100% could, no > straggling hands raised. We then imagined lots of other simple images, > apple, teddy bear, just to warm up. Then I read the class a short A. A. > Milne poem from the When We Were Young collection and asked them to > visualize it as I read it. Even though my own son was tying my shoe laces > together and distracting giggles were ensuing, each child could recount > their own inner vision of the poem and we all marveled at how very > different they were. I've always found young people happy to work > creatively and don't think many teachers understand the importance beyond > the boring art project.. > > I remember this as I think about how imagination enters into the > communication process. Chris' exercise in translation demonstrates how > translators take all the imagination out of the speaking and the listener > or reader is left to implying imagination to fill in the holes. This is > using imagination as a skill. > > Neville talks about awakened imagination (not pushing Neville, just to > expound on what I think is his important idea regarding imagination.) That > is, the use of imagination in inspiration, breakthrough ideation, > creativity at its finest (leading to manifestation.) Beyond fantasy or > mechanics, imagination takes us into states of pure awareness. Like the > difference between dreaming and lucid dreaming. Using software intuitively > and arriving at E=MC2. Although all of our prior experience and hard work > gets us to the brink, only awakened imagination engaged at this point can > get us beyond, employing our genius. > > I think everyone has it. Not all discover they have it our are encouraged > to utilize it. Indeed, most cultures discourage it. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > We are citizens of Lanikea, a vast supercluster of galaxies with the Milky > Way at one edge, flowing towards the Great Attractor, a kind of > gravitational well our river runs to. Whilst the universe is expanding > away, some material moves towards us and some away. We will collide with > Andromeda in about two-and-a-half billion years, though collide is the > wrong word as what will mostly be colliding is space. We imagine this, > though it fits will a great deal of hard work This work is much tougher, > in my view than that of mystics, though the different work needn't be > uncomplimentary. Let's face it, most people can't even balance the chemical > equations taught at school, let alone do any difficult science. Some may > find this a little superior. I'd just remind people that scientists don't > generally amass great fortunes and are generally rather decent chaps and > chapesses with tendencies towards social equality. > > The imagination is often very limited, perhaps to whatever people do > rather than listen in class or church. We imagine a lot to help us cope > with what is imposed on us, and is hardly surprising in education given how > unsuitable it is to most. I still remember more of the girls in 6th form > than the chemistry. I'm not particularly interested in the religious > imagination - I'd trust to holding Molly's hand or RP's passivity Yet > there is little doubt this imagination is in science. Tony might spot the > patterns better than I. I doubt I'm attracted to the same simplicity as > Molly - yet there are parallels in illusion stripping, which may seem odd > to some amdst mystic talk. The great mystification of our age is economics > and I wonder why those like Dawkins focus so much on religion, other than > to sell books. We can imagine a world without economics and it has its own > Inquisition - for the sky itself will fall without out its liturgies. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 9:53:35 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > We actually know something of the embodiment flow. We might consider more > of that in the morning, > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 9:48:35 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > The wheel really comes off if you tinker with a blackhole in the wrong > way. > > On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 9:11:36 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > Whew.. glad someone does.. with out the wheel it becomes difficult to get > the world to go round. > > 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 10:07 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Embodied Imagination > > 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 > > ... -- --- 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.
