Again, I will advise you to focus on your own behavior instead of mine for the answer to your question.
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:50:45 AM UTC-4, RP Singh wrote: > > When you post something in an online conversation you have to be ready to > face criticism, which is necessary for an honest discussion, "it is as you > say RP" not that type of response The response must be honest for we are > not here to socialize rather to thrash out ideas, and if in that exchange > we are embarrassed we have to adjust to the situation because criticism in > these matters is not personal rather of the viewpoint in question. If I > have hurt you somewhere it is unintentional and to be understood as > conversational banter. > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > I gave you a list of rude statement in my last post to you, RP. Why are > you asking Neil about it now (how rude)? I suggest you look to your own > behavior if you want to discover your own rudeness. > > > On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 5:26:21 AM UTC-4, RP Singh wrote: > > Where have I been rude to Molly can anyone tell me, it was just a clash of > viewpoints and in discussions you have to come out strongly which both of > us did. If there was sarcasm it was from both sides, and in discussions in > the modern world chivalry won't do. This is an online conversation and most > of the time you don't even realize that you are talking to a lady. So, > Neil, will you point out to me where I was rude? > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:02 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, now we know Molly is just regressing to a foetal state on the > 'basis' on 9 LSD case studies, we can safely dismiss mysticism and become > slaves of RP's non-mystic unconscious god, naively suffering misery and > euphoria concerning achievements not ours. This is science but not as we > know it Jim. > > I'm off for an adult conversation with Charlie Brown. Doesn't Lucy do > some character assassination psychoanalysis? The mystic bit is not in the > bickering. It would concern the superordinate, not dropping concrete block > absolutes as the only answer to everything.. > > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 6:37:11 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > RP even your Hindu say there is a soul. You are saying it does not exist. > Which is right? > I know I have a soul it is not a best guess as your statements are. I know > God is real far beyond best guess.. Your reality is nothing more than best > guess of what you think you have seen. > Do you know what I have experienced to the point you can exclude my > experiences as invalid dismissing them with the wave of your hand claiming > superior knowledge, which to me is little more than a guess. > I can understand your point of view and how you arrived at your conclusion > including why you feel they are valid.. From your perspective they are > valid. > > The problem is you are only in possessions of partial perspective. Now the > real question is can you truly understand the perspective of others. > Fortunately your perspective does not effect my soul or the souls of > others. Each soul is responsible for only it's perspective. It is a matter > of free will. Sorry but I did not forget that to you free will does not > exist. Sadly apparently you have already made your choice. > > 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: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Einstein and the Mystics > > Man easily accepts what is appealing and that is why people believe in an > after-life. It is the survival instinct that stops us from accepting what > is evident and obvious. Death is certain yet we escape it by taking on the > non-dual perspective, but we are far from the non-dual and always in > duality. It is not the case of one Molly but thousands of others talking > about all-in-one and one-in-all and a non-dual perspective. I don't think > that they even have an idea of what is non-dual, taking an experience of > awareness to be the absolute state. > My view might be disturbing because death is certainly so, but you cannot > escape it by imagining to be the non-dual. We are always responsible > people, yet we are fettered by bonds not recognizable as such, and so the > arrogance and depression. Truth remains what it is and yet we find it > painful, so what else but spirituality to cloak it in just to have a > delusion of immortality. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't take you any other way RP than straight. One must bend in the > wind from time to time. I have known nuns be a bride of god one day and > have given it up the next. Millions have converted with changes in > empire. Most religionists keep the religion they were born with, > suggesting thought has little to do with it. We might envisage 'Molly' as > a good Islamic girl and so on if born in another culture - some are so > racist they can't envision such - though I would have another explanation > of this particular Molly and wouldn't want to bother with explanation at > all. I doubt you can escape superiority by essentialist biological claims > about being a slave of nature, something you are anyway not. Now you have > supernatural agents working in the world instead of responsible people, who > can now only feel under delusion. > > Mysticism is all over the place in history and science. I don't know > whether I want more of it or to understand how to get rid of it (as in > constructor theory and rainbow gravity). I 'speak' to machines that have > produced mystic (to me) outcomes that prove right. Some may think this > deluded, but lack both my maths and the better stuff coming from the > smarter machine. I doubt we are ever dual so non-dual is irrelevant. At > least Molly isn't turning us all into slaves of a god so cruel that we get > to feel shit or smug instead of at peace as robots on the hamster wheel of > fatalism. Even Xtianity is more appealing than this nightmare of yours RP > - no wonder you want an unconscious end. > > Science is very sceptical - far more so than most can take - but one does > not have to detach spiritual comfort or discomfort or what religious > processing might be. Admittedly, most of what I hear and read on religion > and spirituality is bunk or old hat. But if it works on anyone I want to > know why - and if the products are good like machine output who cares? > > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 2:03:36 PM UTC, RP Singh wrote: > > I like to be straight forward but am not abusive, If I talk about other > people it is not to hurt but rather to make them realize that in my opinion > they are just rationalizing experiences into what they are not. What is the > non-dual perspective? How can you be infinite and finite at the same time? > I am either me, a man, or God. I cannot be both. The world is deterministic > or free, it cannot be both, but a man can be free because he doesn't know > the hidden bondage and acts according to impulses or reason and yet be an > instrument in the hands of Nature. Nature is such that it acts from within > the organism and from outside it, but ultimately it is Nature which acts > and man is just the agent. I do not claim that my viewpoint raises me above > others because I know that it is not mine but one passed down to me by > Nature. Everyone is a slave of nature and nature is such that man becomes > attached to the work he does and becomes arrogant or depressed because of > the belief that it is he who acts. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:05 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > The genetic predispositions tend to have some kind of use. Some of these > are very crude, like sickle cell disease as a counter to malaria, or > diabetes in response to famine. Some are permanently disposed to delusion > and I really believe we live in a control fraud. mostly chemical in origin > like enslaved ants. Mystics pump out enslaving soma but may also be in > pursuit of freedom. Marx had some good ideas on freedom, but was also > stuck in the gas of racism and economic determinism - the poverty of > historicism and its chronic stupidity. You wouldn't think much of me > telling you what to do on the basis of my 'superior skin colour' like some > of my worst ancestors RP (though I'm a fourth generation union man on my > fathers side). We cannot go around telling people what they should have > done, yet in a way we also should say we think they are wrong. > > I don't read much mystic stuff because it is so quickly boring and > obviously copied - but this is true of almost all presstitute news.and > soi-called entertainment. I skip sex and action sequences in film because > they are boring copies of copies. How would we decide on what should be > taught? Thousands of serious experts have got this as badly wrong as > religionists who think education is about beating their book into kids. > > Poor little deluded Molly. Shall we go over to the US to make sure she is > safe crossing the road? Look right, look left, look right again now Moll - > oops! You guys drive on the right! Much as our certain attitudes won't do > RP (or Molly's) neither will some soggy relativism. I think we might get > further thinking the future with a real history in a semantic web. Such > would contain deluded idiots who think British involvement in India was > about transfo > > ... -- --- 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.
