I think we just held hands Molly. There is a little serendipity of passing amusement involved. I made up the phrase 'perceptual speed language' last week and Gabby dismissed it somewhat faster than the speed of light as 'old hat' - interesting that it could become such rotted felt long before my slow brain had decided what it might mean. So I googled the phrase to see who had been wearing it and get some fix on where the hat graveyard might globally position. There were no pings, though in that admirable way google leads to where one might want to be (as long as one uses u-block) I came across Maurice Bloch writing in a philosophy journal I hadn't read before, much as one can be sure it is only a collection of the formidable Ms Thiede's milliner's cast-offs.
Switching the imagination off in others looks very parasitic-herd-control-like to me, though we need to understand this in some kind of imagination-delusion continuum. I think Bloch is a bit anthropomorphic. <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gyQQ7xQ1etU/VRK9yMtjr_I/AAAAAAAAAHk/HBTPyy4D2D4/s1600/725b818b9e7a7641c65005f0a49849b8.jpg> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 10:50:19 UTC, Molly wrote: > > Interesting quote. I like it. Seems to me corruption happens when the goal > is finding a hybrid of the ominpresence/imagination and economy - making it > something to buy and sell. This may occur at the hands of psychos who look > to make their fortune or control through puppetry, or may happen with > people just trying to find a profession that allows them to live the OI > daily. It is never hard to see the ego in the message when looking from the > outside and until folks can let go of egoic concerns, it is always there. > > We all learn through failure. Yet have a hard time tolerating the failure > of others and sometimes even our own. But the experience of failure allows > us to see the success from a much more multi-dimensional lens. And this can > be helpful in reaching a point where the OI becomes our operating system. > > I studied visual imagery from many different disciplines in university, > and freshman year stumbled on the notion of "watching" or being aware of a > constant flow of colors in my minds eye in all may waking moments. It > turned into a powerful mediation and because I was meditating while going > through my daily life it opened a whole new viewpoint for me. That > awareness of ominpresence with active (or awakened) imagination is a life > changer. A simple technique like this can get you there but only if you are > open to letting go of a chattering mind and the concerns of the ego. The > mind and ego still operate when called into action, but are no longer > constantly comparing self to others, judging right and wrong in all that is > seen, etc. I really think it helped sharpen my visual recall also, which > was 100% when measured my senior year. > > Now that I think of it, I may start this again. I'm getting ready to > celebrate my birthday this weekend, and believe me, my ability to recall > ain't what it used to be! Thanks for leading me here, Neil. > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 2:13:48 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1499/2055 >> >> Once we realize this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, >> nothing special is left to explain concerning religion. What needs to be >> explained is the much more general question, how it is that we can act so >> much of the time towards visible people in terms of their invisible halo. >> The tool for this fundamental operation is the capacity for imagination. It >> is while searching for neurological evidence for the development of this >> capacity and of its social implications that we, in passing, will account >> for religious-like phenomena. Trying to understand how imagination can >> account for the transcendental social, and incidentally religion, is a >> quite different enterprise to accounting for the religious for itself in >> terms of modules, or core knowledge, which, in any case, we share with >> other primates. Unlike this, imagination does seem to distinguish us from >> chimpanzees and perhaps also distinguishes post-Upper Palaeolithic humans >> from their forebears. >> >> This is from a paper by Maurice Bloch. I have no problem in accepting >> imagination. I wonder what we should do about religious stupidity in the >> transcendental social and that stupidity that cannot distinguish the >> transcendental and transactional social domains? Less corruption in both >> would make life better. >> > -- --- 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.
