RP care for your friendship dearly..
But you have not gone beyond your original thought.. never even expanding on
it.. you are stuck it a rut.. and the rut only has validity in your mind.
One of the problems as I see it the rut is so deep you can not view or see the
validity of a different perspective. .
Kind of a catch 22 situation. (",)
تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others
-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <[email protected]>
To: Minds Eye <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Einstein and the Mystics
Mysticism takes us to the divine presence from which the universe emanates
in a predetermined way. When we look at atoms this is quite evident but as
regard to us humans there is a facade of a conscious free will which makes
predetermination to be accepted very difficult. How can anyone agree that
he is going along a predetermined way when ostensibly he is doing
everything with a conscious free will, and with this comes attachment to
all actions produced by oneself with the accompanying responsibility and
egoism.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:31 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hear you loud and clear..
>
> Agreed
>
> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: archytas <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Einstein and the Mystics
>
> One might see patterns in the worst of religious education, economics and
> the overall system we have that barely teaches most people to be at all
> open to evidence. Retreating to the womb psicko-analysis is as
> rationalising as fundamentalists protecting ancient text as the word of god.
>
> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 5:03:33 PM UTC, archytas wrote:
>>
>> It would be much easier to accept all this without the poison of
>> corruption and ignorance. 90% or more academic papers, despite so-called
>> peer review, including medicine and hard science are rot, and of what's
>> left few advance anything significant. Text books are 99% copies of copies
>> or a dud original. Not long ago economics was a science, now one is
>> supposed to take the stance of an objective scientist more than 60-100
>> years after we knew scientists are not objective. Look how slow our public
>> language has been to catch up. Molly talks (in All About Living) of
>> something I profoundly agree, a need to expose injustice. There is room
>> for the 'non-believer', the different - it goes on. I don't care for the
>> religious aspects, but this is because I frame them differently. The idea
>> that science has destroyed religion is childish, though I think it is clear
>> our societies have all been had by mystical rot, fable and sheer terror
>> (instruments of torture).
>>
>> The kind of things I would have liked to discuss go beyond exposing
>> 'truth' and into mechanisms of exposure, from how religious experience
>> works to how we still manage of keep injustice invisible in plain sight. I
>> could pull Molly's books apart, but you have to know here we try to do the
>> same with Einstein (whose main work is a critique and synthesis of Maxwell
>> and experimenters) and have done this with Darwin and two-dimensions paper
>> geometry. And that I would be happy for kids to be taught from her
>> material and do something similar trying to get over scientific method to
>> undergraduates.
>>
>> This group has never got the message that you can find argument to
>> support or against almost anything. Science has experimental evidence
>> difficult to replicate in other fields (though I can find arguments that
>> dispute this). Argument is actually very rare - nearly everything
>> pretending to be is rhetoric or disguised polemic. I don't do Molly's one
>> but see good in its aspiration. I have found, despite a rather chronic
>> positive generality that makes me uncomfortable, anticipation of much I
>> would want.
>>
>> In the end there are things about getting on with each other in some way
>> other than in positive manners so easily corrupted in a world that doesn't
>> read, do science and exists in varieties of personal comfort, extracted by
>> rationalisation. I don't think most people can see the truth and their
>> minds are not structured to do this. This might well be a problem for the
>> truth-seeker expecting that to expose truth is enough. Each to her own we
>> say in all 'tolerance', forgetting the sociopath and that such relativism
>> is both tolerant and all manner of excuses.
>>
>> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 2:52:00 PM UTC, Molly wrote:
>>
>> A good, but lengthy interiew with Rupert Sheldrake: http://www.
>> thebestschools.org/features/rupert-sheldrake-interview/
>> <http://www.thebestschools.org/features/rupert-sheldrake-interview/>
>>
>> Articulates some of what is being bandied about here:
>>
>>
>> 1. Our viewpoint and how it effects our lives
>>
>> ...
>
> --
>
> ---
> 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.
