I would need more on that - the mark brings us back to promises. I could go with sweeping away the dross and either lack that kind of faith or have something better. I lack even the experience of falling in love, though I'm aware of chemical changes. I know what it is to be vulnerable, but think Watership Down on mention of the 'mark'.
I flipped through over 50 papers in the afternoon and there is a big literature of people arguing without the hostilities, either petty personal or ideological of the Dawkins delusion. I don't have much time for people who haven't been under fire making judgements on experience I have had and religious experience seems to lead to something similar and perhaps as valid. On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 10:08:43 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > I know what you mean about this kind of material (video) pandering to the > "spirituality" trend and not really hitting the mark. I think because most > people have not experienced the mark, they fall for it and buy the book or > DVD or seminar. I have to go with Allan on this in that it is all from god. > I think if it comes into your experience there is something in it for you, > not that you have to buy anything or follow the heard in any way. But I > think there is a thread of truth that runs through everything in your > experience that, if that thread shone through everything and presented > itself to you above the rest, the dross would fall away. Because that dross > is the parts of your experience steeped in duality, and the truth > transcends but includes duality, when viewing the entire thread, you can > see how the dross relates in the big scheme. > > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 4:50:49 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> Cartwright, Nancy 1999 The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of >> Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. >> >> She made many good points on the dangers of unitary thinking. A review >> of her ideas concluded: >> >> We need not think unity is the appropriate ideal needed in these cases of >> practical >> conflict. Instead, we might consider the appropriate ideal to be simply >> reality itself, which is >> sometimes connected in a systematic and causal way, and sometimes not. >> Reality cannot >> conflict or contradict (though our fallible knowledge of it can, of >> course) but reality need not >> be nice and neat and orderly either, ready for our deductive or >> systematic demands. In >> general, since there is no successful theory of everything and so we do >> not know when to >> look for unity and when to accept difference, we must weigh the varying >> values to decide >> whether to accept pluralism and recognize different explanations for >> different kinds of >> phenomena or whether to accept local unity that would require recognizing >> that one >> explanation gets it right and the other does not (or that both are >> incomplete). When it comes >> to science and religion, this requirement is not necessarily different in >> kind from what we are >> required to do with the various sciences. It turns out that a complete >> unified theory is not >> needed for our practical lives, even though resolving conflicts is, and, >> of course, a completely >> unified theory is not forthcoming >> >> She pointed to a lot of religious claptrap based on over-simplistic >> unitary 'reasoning', that also reverse into science. I would, of course, >> go more AI than your friend Allan. >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 8:11:29 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: >>> >>> Religion yes there is a problem.. >>> Mainly because they have taken mysticism to hell in a hand basket. And >>> mysticism has taken the same route. >>> You in a way are in ways better off dumping a lot of ideas. If we change >>> the perspective a little to looking at the Total Presence as a repository >>> of all scientific knowledge and you take the time to sit quietly to access >>> this reservoir.. that is what our brilliant friend did.. quite simple to >>> do all essentially is realize this reservoir exists and you access it via >>> sitting quietly listening to the presence. >>> >>> >>> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين >>> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: archytas <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 8:40 PM >>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Einstein and the Mystics >>> >>> The movie has the science wrong Allan, but we could make one with the >>> real science making the same points in an accurate manner. Some scientists >>> believe we could progress further in science if we stripped it of even more >>> religion too. The mystic side often claims that their techniques are >>> simple and everyone can share them. I don't think this is true and its >>> complicated by emotions be so gullible - yet I want something rather like >>> this and education as we have it fails. And religious institutions as >>> control frauds are in the way. We need some dialogue that isn't between >>> 'Dawkins' and fundamentalists. >>> >>> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 5:50:53 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>> >>>> Excellent video and web page. There is recall visiting a small museum >>>> hidden under a cover you could lift a cover and read from one of >>>> Eisenstein's journal.. what an exciting moment seeing the actual work in >>>> his own hand.. ( if we meet here for a visit Neil we will have to go and >>>> view this treasure) >>>> >>>> I agree with out the presence science to me has no value. In the movie >>>> they talk about crossing the time space barrier you cross to make the >>>> connection with the presence and the reservoir of total knowledge >>>> contained >>>> within. >>>> >>>> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين >>>> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: archytas <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 5:36 PM >>>> Subject: Mind's Eye Einstein and the Mystics >>>> >>>> The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the >>>> sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom >>>> this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in >>>> awe, >>>> is good as dead. >>>> When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the >>>> conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent >>>> for >>>> absorbing positive knowledge >>>> >>>> Einstein. >>>> >>>> This guy has kindly put together 800 Einstein quotes - >>>> http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X0001134E/ >>>> >>>> >>>> My potted version of Einstein working on Relativity and the quantum is >>>> not so mystical. The rock and hard place of his time were Maxwell's great >>>> equations of forces we can't see (mystical sort of) and contradictory >>>> empirical evidence from experiment (Hopf was the great experimenter), >>>> Newton and Galileo had also 'noticed relativity'. Einstein read a lot >>>> and >>>> so knew of the rock and hard place. Even a few school teachers (Abbott) >>>> had noticed the 'relativity of dimensions'. Einstein had really worked >>>> hard on maths most people still don't do and almost certainly cannot. >>>> Poincarre and Lorentz had already produced 'mathematical transformations' >>>> that were the solution seed, Instead of hammering away trying to prove >>>> Maxwell or the experimenters right, Einstein searched for an underlying >>>> kinematics to reconcile both. We might now call this a Wittgensteinian >>>> deconstruction, finding what is common deep in apparently conflicting >>>> arguments. >>>> >>>> Everyone in this group, except Gabby (no not really, I'm emphasizing >>>> here her important notion of the role of the dunce in the corner, the >>>> speed >>>> of inertial violence) will admit they are short on positive knowledge, too >>>> idle or unskilled to do what Einstein did. Of course, we don't have >>>> relativity or quantum physics because of Einstein. There were many others >>>> and it is even possible we might have moved further through modified >>>> Newtonianism. >>>> >>>> The following short video is a science-religion meet kinda thingy. I >>>> regard it as utter, exploitative crap, that works on ignorance, half-baked >>>> ideas and marketing to them. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BiTWFdnd7Q >>>> >>>> >>>> To rework current very silly arguments in which 'bright' people like >>>> Dawkins take on idiot creationists, we need to go down deeper, yet at the >>>> same time not insist participants have 'huge qualifications' in positive >>>> knowledge that attempt to make silk purses out of our sows' ears. This is >>>> a tough one. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> 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.
