The Truth of the Matter IS
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Molly Brogan
May 26, 2008, 9:33:32 AM5/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
What is truth? How do we find truth? If we find it, can we
communicate it?
According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated
by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and
functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of
change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused
and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato,
Republic)
To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally
ordered system that is God. To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated
system in which everything is contained. To Einstein, “the truth of
the Universe is human truth.”
Modern day philosopher, Ken Wilber, believes that there is a nondual,
absolute truth, that can only be accessed by Satori, and a relative or
conventional truth, that is formed by our place in the nested
hierarchy of being (each higher of which includes the ones beneath it,
creating a series of nested holons.) Each holon has its own validity
claim, its own relative partial, but still totally authentic truth.
Because as a group, we are in different levels of awareness, or
different holons in the great nest, we have different relative truths.
According to Wilber, the absolute is known only by a direct
realization involving a transformation in consciousness (satori,
sahaj, metanoia), and "what" is seen in satori cannot be stated in
ordinary dualistic words, other than metaphors, poetry, and hints (if
you want to know God, you must awaken, not merely theorize).
What do YOU think?
communicate it?
According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated
by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and
functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of
change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused
and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato,
Republic)
To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally
ordered system that is God. To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated
system in which everything is contained. To Einstein, “the truth of
the Universe is human truth.”
Modern day philosopher, Ken Wilber, believes that there is a nondual,
absolute truth, that can only be accessed by Satori, and a relative or
conventional truth, that is formed by our place in the nested
hierarchy of being (each higher of which includes the ones beneath it,
creating a series of nested holons.) Each holon has its own validity
claim, its own relative partial, but still totally authentic truth.
Because as a group, we are in different levels of awareness, or
different holons in the great nest, we have different relative truths.
According to Wilber, the absolute is known only by a direct
realization involving a transformation in consciousness (satori,
sahaj, metanoia), and "what" is seen in satori cannot be stated in
ordinary dualistic words, other than metaphors, poetry, and hints (if
you want to know God, you must awaken, not merely theorize).
What do YOU think?
gabbydott
May 26, 2008, 10:51:42 AM5/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hm, reads like Vista-screensaver-bubbles. Their kind purpose is to
save your screen from bursting.
On 26 Mai, 15:33, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
save your screen from bursting.
On 26 Mai, 15:33, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
Vamadevananda
May 26, 2008, 11:09:46 AM5/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
On May 26, 7:51 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm, reads like Vista-screensaver-bubbles. Their kind purpose is to
> save your screen from bursting.
of the matter, you are not only horribly mistaken but not even funny !
What do you think the truth of the matter IS, Gabby ?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Keith MacNevins
May 26, 2008, 2:20:47 PM5/26/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Truth is the only thing that matters.
frantheman
May 26, 2008, 2:44:51 PM5/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
Ah yes, Keith, but to quote a certain Roman governer:
"Τί έστιν άλήθεια?" (Jn. 18:38)
On 26 Mai, 20:20, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Truth is the only thing that matters.
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
"Τί έστιν άλήθεια?" (Jn. 18:38)
On 26 Mai, 20:20, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Truth is the only thing that matters.
>
> Ambassador From Hell- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
gabbydott
May 26, 2008, 4:24:13 PM5/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hm? OK, I admit my "kind purpose" is grammatically not extremely
elegant but saves me a lot of distracting words. But where do you see
the horror? "Kind" as child?
elegant but saves me a lot of distracting words. But where do you see
the horror? "Kind" as child?
ornamentalmind
May 26, 2008, 4:46:12 PM5/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
Molly, of course one knows that the ontological view Wilber presents
has been known 'forever'. One can find a very very similar view in
Platonic and neo-Platonic school presentations, in the Gelugpa school
of Tibetan Buddhism, to some extent in the original notion of
Zoroaster etc.
You asked what I think. (a nice rhetorical divice)
When I think (words/concepts) of course I am focused upon the relative/
subjective aspect of mind. And, I find it possible to focus
concurrently upon the absolute/objective aspect of mind.
Even HHDL (His Holiness the Dalai Lama) points towards both minds. As
does the ancient philosopher Nagarjuna when in his "Prajna-nama-mula-
madhyamakakarika", XXIV. 8 he says:
"Doctrines taught by the Buddhas
Rely wholly on the two truths,
Conventional worldly truths
And truths that are ultimate."
Of course, these 'two' truths are in fact one mind. We can focus upon
either/both. All too often within current day Western philosophy the
former is all that is addressed/apprehended. Wilber points toward that
which has been found to be heretical within Western philosophy
recently.
When one can focus upon/know both, consubstantially, the truth is
known.
Further, when asked about the analyser analysing, Santideva says in
his "Engaging in the Bohdisattva Deeds" (IX. 110-111):
"If the objects of analysis [all phenomena in general]
Have been analysed [and determined not to exist inherently],
Then [for that mind] no [further inherently existent] basis
[requiring more analysis] exists.
Because the bases [which are the phenomena qualified by
emptiness] do not inherently exist,
[An object of negation], inherent existence and its negative
Are not inherently produced, that too is called [the natural]
nirvana."
Whether found in Tantra, Dzogchen, Elysian Fields, Zhikrs, Delphi,
Luxor et al, the truth is omnipresent.
On May 26, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
has been known 'forever'. One can find a very very similar view in
Platonic and neo-Platonic school presentations, in the Gelugpa school
of Tibetan Buddhism, to some extent in the original notion of
Zoroaster etc.
You asked what I think. (a nice rhetorical divice)
When I think (words/concepts) of course I am focused upon the relative/
subjective aspect of mind. And, I find it possible to focus
concurrently upon the absolute/objective aspect of mind.
Even HHDL (His Holiness the Dalai Lama) points towards both minds. As
does the ancient philosopher Nagarjuna when in his "Prajna-nama-mula-
madhyamakakarika", XXIV. 8 he says:
"Doctrines taught by the Buddhas
Rely wholly on the two truths,
Conventional worldly truths
And truths that are ultimate."
Of course, these 'two' truths are in fact one mind. We can focus upon
either/both. All too often within current day Western philosophy the
former is all that is addressed/apprehended. Wilber points toward that
which has been found to be heretical within Western philosophy
recently.
When one can focus upon/know both, consubstantially, the truth is
known.
Further, when asked about the analyser analysing, Santideva says in
his "Engaging in the Bohdisattva Deeds" (IX. 110-111):
"If the objects of analysis [all phenomena in general]
Have been analysed [and determined not to exist inherently],
Then [for that mind] no [further inherently existent] basis
[requiring more analysis] exists.
Because the bases [which are the phenomena qualified by
emptiness] do not inherently exist,
[An object of negation], inherent existence and its negative
Are not inherently produced, that too is called [the natural]
nirvana."
Whether found in Tantra, Dzogchen, Elysian Fields, Zhikrs, Delphi,
Luxor et al, the truth is omnipresent.
On May 26, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
Keith MacNevins
May 27, 2008, 12:09:19 AM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
From the rock music album, "Jesus Christ Superstar."
"Does truth have changing laws?"
"Are my truths the same as yours?"
Ambassador From Hell
Pat
May 27, 2008, 1:15:46 AM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 May, 05:09, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the rock music album, "Jesus Christ Superstar."
>
> "Does truth have changing laws?"
> "Are my truths the same as yours?"
>
the day. But, to be fair, it's better than what WAS going through my
head at the time. I'd recently re-watched the film "Tommy" and, for
some reason, I had "Cousin Kevin" stuck in my mind. The funny thing
is the fact that Kevin was played by Paul Nicholas, who was Jesus when
"Jesus Christ Superstar" opened in London. Big contrast in
characters, for sure. ;-)
frantheman
May 27, 2008, 1:53:21 AM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
I thought Ian Gillan (Deep Purple) played Jesus. He does on the album.
Francis
> > - Show quoted text -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
Francis
Pat
May 27, 2008, 5:21:26 AM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 May, 06:53, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I thought Ian Gillan (Deep Purple) played Jesus. He does on the album.
>
> Francis
>
Broadway or the West End of London. I FAR prefer Gillian's audio
performance and I often wonder what it would have been like with Ian,
but, alas, we'll probably never see it. Jeff Fenholt played Jesus on
Broadway and Paul Nicholas in the West End. As for the Broadway side,
Barry Dennen WAS Pilate and Yvonne Elliman WAS Mary. Ben Vereen was
the Broadway Judas and Carl Anderson, the Judas on film, was his
understudy.
Molly Brogan
May 27, 2008, 11:37:28 AM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
That is so true!
gabbydott
May 27, 2008, 11:56:02 AM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
Vam, are you still thinking?
Keith MacNevins
May 27, 2008, 11:59:55 AM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
I think it is accurate to say that truth and beauty are frequently cousins. In that sense, truth is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, the craggy, wrinkled, age worn, decrepit face of Mother Teresa of India. A thing of beauty. Sometime ago I read something about the experience of pain that stuck in my mind. Some pain, while not pleasant, can be described as exquisite in its nature. Certainly gets our attention, produces an immediate reaction, and can quite possibly serve to save us from a lot worse harm if we somehow managed to ignore it.--
Ambassador From Hell
Ambassador From Hell
Ian Pollard
May 27, 2008, 12:02:13 PM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Mother Theresa was a fanatic and a fraud.
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
xxxianxx
--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "
-- John Stuart Mill
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
xxxianxx
--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "
-- John Stuart Mill
Molly Brogan
May 27, 2008, 12:28:38 PM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
WOW
Keith MacNevins
May 27, 2008, 12:46:30 PM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Sorry if I used the wrong example. I suppose I could have said Abraham Lincoln, but he was said to be a lot of things as well.
Keith MacNevins
May 27, 2008, 12:47:37 PM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
On 5/27/08, Ian Pollard <ian.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
ornamentalmind
May 27, 2008, 3:27:02 PM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
Keith said: "Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no
vice."
True that. I especially appreciated "Uncle Wolf's" pledge and success
at greatly improving the economy as well as fulfilling the historical
nationalistic identity fantasy of an entire people.
This appreciation can be supported by my use of the mosaic found in
the Obergruppenfuhrersaal room on my profile. At the time, they wanted
to raise a "kind accordant religion and moral doctine" from their
heritage.
Clearly their quest for service to others was no vice at all.
On May 27, 9:47 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
> Ambassador From Hell
vice."
True that. I especially appreciated "Uncle Wolf's" pledge and success
at greatly improving the economy as well as fulfilling the historical
nationalistic identity fantasy of an entire people.
This appreciation can be supported by my use of the mosaic found in
the Obergruppenfuhrersaal room on my profile. At the time, they wanted
to raise a "kind accordant religion and moral doctine" from their
heritage.
Clearly their quest for service to others was no vice at all.
On May 27, 9:47 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
> On 5/27/08, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mother Theresa was a fanatic and a fraud.
>
> >http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > --
> > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > advancement. "
>
> > -- John Stuart Mill
>
> --
>
>
>
> > Mother Theresa was a fanatic and a fraud.
>
> >http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > --
> > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > advancement. "
>
> > -- John Stuart Mill
>
> Ambassador From Hell
frantheman
May 27, 2008, 5:12:47 PM5/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 Mai, 18:47, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
of religious, ideological and nationalist wars throughout history
would undoubtably agree!
Francis
Keith MacNevins
May 27, 2008, 11:41:48 PM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
It helps when the service provided is beneficial. And not just beneficial to the providers of the service.--
Ambassador From Hell
Ambassador From Hell
Keith MacNevins
May 27, 2008, 11:43:02 PM5/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Yea, yea yea. Fanaticism in the quest for truth is no vice, either.
ornamentalmind
May 28, 2008, 3:20:44 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On May 27, 8:41 pm, "Keith MacNevins"
of the most beneficial services to the entire Germanic people of all
time! How else would they have gained Lebensraum? How else would the
entire country’s economy become restructured? They were in a terrible
economic situation until Uncle Wolf took over!
Add to this his wonderful rearming of the military and charismatic
oratory emphasizing nationalism resulting in the adoration of an
entire peoples and you come up with what could arguably be called one
of the most beneficent leaders of all time!
On May 27, 8:41 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It helps when the service provided is beneficial. And not just beneficial to
> the providers of the service.
>
"It helps when the service provided is beneficial. And not just
beneficial to the providers of the service."
You are so right! Just as I had posted, Herr Wolf surely provided one
beneficial to the providers of the service."
of the most beneficial services to the entire Germanic people of all
time! How else would they have gained Lebensraum? How else would the
entire country’s economy become restructured? They were in a terrible
economic situation until Uncle Wolf took over!
Add to this his wonderful rearming of the military and charismatic
oratory emphasizing nationalism resulting in the adoration of an
entire peoples and you come up with what could arguably be called one
of the most beneficent leaders of all time!
On May 27, 8:41 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It helps when the service provided is beneficial. And not just beneficial to
> the providers of the service.
>
> On 5/27/08, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keith said: "Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no
> > vice."
>
> > True that. I especially appreciated "Uncle Wolf's" pledge and success
> > at greatly improving the economy as well as fulfilling the historical
> > nationalistic identity fantasy of an entire people.
>
> > This appreciation can be supported by my use of the mosaic found in
> > the Obergruppenfuhrersaal room on my profile. At the time, they wanted
> > to raise a "kind accordant religion and moral doctine" from their
> > heritage.
>
> > Clearly their quest for service to others was no vice at all.
>
> > On May 27, 9:47 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
> > > On 5/27/08, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Mother Theresa was a fanatic and a fraud.
>
> > > >http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
>
> > > > xxxianxx
>
> > > > --
> > > > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > > > advancement. "
>
> > > > -- John Stuart Mill
>
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keith said: "Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no
> > vice."
>
> > True that. I especially appreciated "Uncle Wolf's" pledge and success
> > at greatly improving the economy as well as fulfilling the historical
> > nationalistic identity fantasy of an entire people.
>
> > This appreciation can be supported by my use of the mosaic found in
> > the Obergruppenfuhrersaal room on my profile. At the time, they wanted
> > to raise a "kind accordant religion and moral doctine" from their
> > heritage.
>
> > Clearly their quest for service to others was no vice at all.
>
> > On May 27, 9:47 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
> > > On 5/27/08, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Mother Theresa was a fanatic and a fraud.
>
> > > >http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
>
> > > > xxxianxx
>
> > > > --
> > > > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > > > advancement. "
>
> > > > -- John Stuart Mill
>
> > > --
> > > Ambassador From Hell
>
> --
Pat
May 28, 2008, 3:44:55 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 May, 08:20, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 8:41 pm, "Keith MacNevins"
> "It helps when the service provided is beneficial. And not just
> beneficial to the providers of the service."
>
> You are so right! Just as I had posted, Herr Wolf surely provided one
> of the most beneficial services to the entire Germanic people of all
> time! How else would they have gained Lebensraum? How else would the
> entire country’s economy become restructured? They were in a terrible
> economic situation until Uncle Wolf took over!
>
> Add to this his wonderful rearming of the military and charismatic
> oratory emphasizing nationalism resulting in the adoration of an
> entire peoples and you come up with what could arguably be called one
> of the most beneficent leaders of all time!
>
frantheman
May 28, 2008, 6:59:22 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Epitaph on a Tyrant
Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.
W.H. Auden (1939)
Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.
W.H. Auden (1939)
Chris Jenkins
May 28, 2008, 7:38:24 AM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Hitler and Torquemada agree!
Molly Brogan
May 28, 2008, 7:40:15 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Clashing relative truth can create conflict, if either side is not
open to any greater truth. In terms of truth, it would seem we need a
sense of both relative and absolute truth to really be in service to
all.
open to any greater truth. In terms of truth, it would seem we need a
sense of both relative and absolute truth to really be in service to
all.
Pat
May 28, 2008, 8:26:46 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 May, 12:38, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hitler and Torquemada agree!
>
I'm sure the two would have agreed on the priniclple, if not the
implementation, of 'The Final Solution'.
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Keith MacNevins <kmacnev...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yea, yea yea. Fanaticism in the quest for truth is no vice, either.
>
>
>
>
> > Yea, yea yea. Fanaticism in the quest for truth is no vice, either.
>
> > On 5/27/08, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 27 Mai, 18:47, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
> >> To underline Orn's point, I'm sure the hundreds of millions of victims
> >> of religious, ideological and nationalist wars throughout history
> >> would undoubtably agree!
>
> >> Francis >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> On 27 Mai, 18:47, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Fanaticism in the quest for service to others is no vice.
>
> >> To underline Orn's point, I'm sure the hundreds of millions of victims
> >> of religious, ideological and nationalist wars throughout history
> >> would undoubtably agree!
>
Chris Jenkins
May 28, 2008, 8:51:50 AM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Yes, Hitler was all about efficiency, while Torquemada liked to take the time to stop and smell the corpses...
Molly Brogan
May 28, 2008, 9:18:22 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hitler seems to be the archtype for ultimate evil in this group, and
as such, I suppose, has a place in a discussion on relative truth.
But without getting into Hitler bashing (easy enough) or another
discussion on good and evil - what can examining the life of Hitler
tell us about truth?
On May 28, 8:51 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
as such, I suppose, has a place in a discussion on relative truth.
But without getting into Hitler bashing (easy enough) or another
discussion on good and evil - what can examining the life of Hitler
tell us about truth?
On May 28, 8:51 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, Hitler was all about efficiency, while Torquemada liked to take the
> time to stop and smell the corpses...
>
> time to stop and smell the corpses...
>
Molly Brogan
May 28, 2008, 9:20:50 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hitler seems to be the archtype of evil in these discussions. Without
getting into Hitler bashing (easy enough) or another discussion on the
nature of evil, what can the life of Hitler tell us about truth?
getting into Hitler bashing (easy enough) or another discussion on the
nature of evil, what can the life of Hitler tell us about truth?
> Yes, Hitler was all about efficiency, while Torquemada liked to take the
> time to stop and smell the corpses...
>
> time to stop and smell the corpses...
>
Ian Pollard
May 28, 2008, 9:33:19 AM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Honestly. What the fuck. Do people know anything about Mother Teresa?
She was a beast, a fake, a fundamentalist, an enemy of the poor, a friend of corrupt and evil regimes, opposed to basic women's rights, and downright fraudulent. Her morality, too, was skewed and riddled with inconstancies and double-standards.
No-one in the history of this planet has done more harm to the emerging world.
She was a beast, a fake, a fundamentalist, an enemy of the poor, a friend of corrupt and evil regimes, opposed to basic women's rights, and downright fraudulent. Her morality, too, was skewed and riddled with inconstancies and double-standards.
No-one in the history of this planet has done more harm to the emerging world.
Pat
May 28, 2008, 9:43:51 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 May, 14:33, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly. What the fuck. Do people know anything about Mother Teresa?
>
> She was a beast, a fake, a fundamentalist, an enemy of the poor, a friend of
> corrupt and evil regimes, opposed to basic women's rights, and downright
> fraudulent. Her morality, too, was skewed and riddled with inconstancies and
> double-standards.
>
> No-one in the history of this planet has done more harm to the emerging
> world.
>
I thought we were talking about Hitler. They WERE different people
WEREN'T they?
Ian Pollard
May 28, 2008, 10:27:05 AM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
We were talking about Hitler, but Mother Teresa came up late yesterday. :)
I shall quote who I'm responding too next time!
xxxianxx
2008/5/28 Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com>:
Molly Brogan
May 28, 2008, 10:40:46 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Perhaps what is true is that we all identify our own archetype of
evil. Hitler certainly more common than Mother Teresa as he did not
win the nobel prize. Is there a truth that transcends this, or do we
need our villains so that we cling tightly to our relative truth?
On May 28, 10:27 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We were talking about Hitler, but Mother Teresa came up late yesterday. :)
>
> I shall quote who I'm responding too next time!
>
> xxxianxx
>
> 2008/5/28 Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>:
evil. Hitler certainly more common than Mother Teresa as he did not
win the nobel prize. Is there a truth that transcends this, or do we
need our villains so that we cling tightly to our relative truth?
On May 28, 10:27 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We were talking about Hitler, but Mother Teresa came up late yesterday. :)
>
> I shall quote who I'm responding too next time!
>
> xxxianxx
>
Pat
May 28, 2008, 11:47:32 AM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 May, 15:27, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We were talking about Hitler, but Mother Teresa came up late yesterday. :)
>
within myself when I saw what you wrote. And, after all, it was in
response to an 'Ian', so it was congruent. ;-)
> I shall quote who I'm responding too next time!
>
> xxxianxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 May, 14:33, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Honestly. What the fuck. Do people know anything about Mother Teresa?
>
> > > She was a beast, a fake, a fundamentalist, an enemy of the poor, a friend
> > of
> > > corrupt and evil regimes, opposed to basic women's rights, and downright
> > > fraudulent. Her morality, too, was skewed and riddled with inconstancies
> > and
> > > double-standards.
>
> > > No-one in the history of this planet has done more harm to the emerging
> > > world.
>
> > {does a double-take and in my best impersonation of Paul Merton}:
> > I thought we were talking about Hitler. They WERE different people
> > WEREN'T they?
>
> > > xxxianxx
>
> > > --
> > > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > > advancement. "
>
> > > -- John Stuart Mill
>
> --
> "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> advancement. "
>
> -- John Stuart Mill- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 May, 14:33, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Honestly. What the fuck. Do people know anything about Mother Teresa?
>
> > > She was a beast, a fake, a fundamentalist, an enemy of the poor, a friend
> > of
> > > corrupt and evil regimes, opposed to basic women's rights, and downright
> > > fraudulent. Her morality, too, was skewed and riddled with inconstancies
> > and
> > > double-standards.
>
> > > No-one in the history of this planet has done more harm to the emerging
> > > world.
>
> > {does a double-take and in my best impersonation of Paul Merton}:
> > I thought we were talking about Hitler. They WERE different people
> > WEREN'T they?
>
> > > xxxianxx
>
> > > --
> > > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > > advancement. "
>
> > > -- John Stuart Mill
>
> --
> "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> advancement. "
>
Keith MacNevins
May 28, 2008, 12:45:01 PM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Silly, Adolf Hitler and his partners in atrocities laid waste Germany and millions of Germans.
Keith MacNevins
May 28, 2008, 12:47:02 PM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
The best solution was Hitler doused with petrol.--
Ambassador From Hell
Ambassador From Hell
ornamentalmind
May 28, 2008, 2:54:02 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Fran, thanks for sharing Auden with me. Oh, that I had time to study
him this lifetime too!
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
him this lifetime too!
ornamentalmind
May 28, 2008, 3:06:23 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
"Silly" right back atcha! Grand master Adolf did little to lay waste
Deutchland. Look not to the Axis, but to the Allies! That is, IF one
wishes to not be accused of advocating revisionist history.
That IS the "Truth of the Matter".
On May 28, 9:45 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silly, Adolf Hitler and his partners in atrocities laid waste Germany and
> millions of Germans.
>
Deutchland. Look not to the Axis, but to the Allies! That is, IF one
wishes to not be accused of advocating revisionist history.
That IS the "Truth of the Matter".
On May 28, 9:45 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silly, Adolf Hitler and his partners in atrocities laid waste Germany and
> millions of Germans.
>
frantheman
May 28, 2008, 3:11:34 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 Mai, 18:45, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silly, Adolf Hitler and his partners in atrocities laid waste Germany and
> millions of Germans.
>
this short and concise link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irony
Francis
ornamentalmind
May 28, 2008, 3:17:18 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Molly, truth be told, I seldom select Adolf over Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu
when it comes to 'evil'. Both, for sure could teach me much!
Yet, I seldom use the nobel prize as an indicator of the apparent
opposite either.
Further, when it comes to 'clinging', yes, memes do appear to be
needed by most thinking people. At least, they continue to arise.
As to the transcendental...I find an omnipresent and eternal
'learning' here, there and everywhere.
"...Everywhere, knowing that love is to share
each one believing that love never dies
watching her eyes and hoping I'm always there...."
Yet, a more transcendental love notion is found in an ancient Sufi
song:
"All I ask of you is forever to remember me, as loving you...."
On May 28, 7:40 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
> > -- John Stuart Mill- Hide quoted text -
when it comes to 'evil'. Both, for sure could teach me much!
Yet, I seldom use the nobel prize as an indicator of the apparent
opposite either.
Further, when it comes to 'clinging', yes, memes do appear to be
needed by most thinking people. At least, they continue to arise.
As to the transcendental...I find an omnipresent and eternal
'learning' here, there and everywhere.
"...Everywhere, knowing that love is to share
each one believing that love never dies
watching her eyes and hoping I'm always there...."
Yet, a more transcendental love notion is found in an ancient Sufi
song:
"All I ask of you is forever to remember me, as loving you...."
On May 28, 7:40 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
Keith MacNevins
May 28, 2008, 3:17:49 PM5/28/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Does ornamental refer to showy display with no substance?
On 5/28/08, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ornamentalmind
May 28, 2008, 4:01:13 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On May 28, 12:17 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does ornamental refer to showy display with no substance?
*** Seldom directly responds to poorly veiled ad hominem attacks ***
> Does ornamental refer to showy display with no substance?
For the unenlightened from: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ad+hominim+attack
An ad hominem attack is a personal attack in the form of an ad hominem
argument.
Ad hominem attacks are often used in a debate or discussion where the
speaker wishes to avoid the substance of the discussion and instead
resorts to smearing the character of their opponent.
It is considered a logical fallacy and is one of the modes of
spreading propaganda. personal attack is committed when a person
substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another
person's claims or comments. ....
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim,
On May 28, 12:17 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does ornamental refer to showy display with no substance?
>
Molly Brogan
May 28, 2008, 4:06:40 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
I think we are getting farther from the truth.
ornamentalmind
May 28, 2008, 4:21:33 PM5/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On May 28, 1:06 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
On May 28, 1:06 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
> I think we are getting farther from the truth.
>
So it appears. :-(
>
On May 28, 1:06 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
archytas
May 29, 2008, 12:56:15 AM5/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
Truth is something we 'push away' in Freud. Arguments in formal
language rarely succeeed once they have abandonned the empirical -
other than succeeding in persuasion and we are easily persuaded by
crocks. Most critical reasoning tests ask you to sort the wheat from
the diversionary chaff and people aren't good at them. We need a
technology of truth - a wider embodiment of what we actually can know
- and one we can trust. Humans ain't good at this as our politicians
demonstrate over and over. Regimes of truth are always less rational
than we think from the inside of them. We still fail on basics in my
view.
language rarely succeeed once they have abandonned the empirical -
other than succeeding in persuasion and we are easily persuaded by
crocks. Most critical reasoning tests ask you to sort the wheat from
the diversionary chaff and people aren't good at them. We need a
technology of truth - a wider embodiment of what we actually can know
- and one we can trust. Humans ain't good at this as our politicians
demonstrate over and over. Regimes of truth are always less rational
than we think from the inside of them. We still fail on basics in my
view.
Keith MacNevins
May 29, 2008, 12:59:21 AM5/29/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Molly Brogan
May 29, 2008, 8:49:04 AM5/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
I understand what you are saying, Neil, and applaud your passion. But
I must say I don't agree. I think that truth is always all around us,
and it is up to each of us to understand it.
Relative truth is presented to us constantly through divine grace. It
is reflected to us in our experience, formed in our relationships,
gifted us in dream and intuition.
Absolute truth is given to us in the PROCESS of divine grace - always
the same for everyone. This process is the immutable laws of the
universe that we know give it order. Relative truth is given to us in
the EXPERIENCE of divine grace - everything in our world and the
workings of it is a reflection of us and who we are in the moment (the
Essene Mirrors of Relationship.) This is different for everyone and
structured by their level of consciousness.
Language is part of the experience of divine grace. "There's a blaze
of light in every word, it doesn't matter which you heard, the holy or
the broken Hallelujah." This can also be interpreted logically (if I
speak 9 languages fluently it structures the cognizant abilities of my
mind) or in spirit (tower of babel) but it is still just a
relationship tool, until we feel the blaze of light, divine grace,
within it.
I suppose that proving divine grace would be like proving God. It is
the realm of consciousness, not conscious mind. The transition from
one to the other is often a function of "the witness," or that part of
us that allows us to observe ourselves acting, thinking, being etc.
Perhaps this is like the technology you refer to. Being in the
witness requires that we can move outside of our ego aspect, step back
from ourselves. Once this becomes our primary state, we naturally move
into a state where good and evil or any other polarity carries no
charge for us. In other word, we don't feel the good or the bad, or
see AS good or bad, but we see and feel the perfection in all there
is, and recognize the possibility inherent within it. Here, what is
commonly called good and evil exist, but because we can now see it
without that value based charge, we can see the inherent value as part
of the greater whole, not as one or the other polar opposite. Here we
enter a state of grace.
This position of the witness can come upon us quite naturally from
time to time. If we can remember it, and sustain it, we begin to see
the elegance and grace of living. It allows us to examine and live our
relative truth.
There is much more to the witness than this entry level. By witnessing
the THE PROCESS OF THE WITNESS, we begin our direct experience of
absolute truth. This must be done by each of us alone, because we
each have our own relative truth and therefore, path to the absolute
truth. It is an experience, not a construct.
This is the process as I see it. I understand that everyone has their
own relative truth, that we express them to the best of our ability
with the language we have learned, that all are of value, and I
appreciate all viewpoints. I especially appreciate the willingness to
take the time to share and explore and dialogue with enthusiasm.
Molly
On May 29, 12:59 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an ad homonym attack. Knot!
>
> --
> Ambassador From Hell
I must say I don't agree. I think that truth is always all around us,
and it is up to each of us to understand it.
Relative truth is presented to us constantly through divine grace. It
is reflected to us in our experience, formed in our relationships,
gifted us in dream and intuition.
Absolute truth is given to us in the PROCESS of divine grace - always
the same for everyone. This process is the immutable laws of the
universe that we know give it order. Relative truth is given to us in
the EXPERIENCE of divine grace - everything in our world and the
workings of it is a reflection of us and who we are in the moment (the
Essene Mirrors of Relationship.) This is different for everyone and
structured by their level of consciousness.
Language is part of the experience of divine grace. "There's a blaze
of light in every word, it doesn't matter which you heard, the holy or
the broken Hallelujah." This can also be interpreted logically (if I
speak 9 languages fluently it structures the cognizant abilities of my
mind) or in spirit (tower of babel) but it is still just a
relationship tool, until we feel the blaze of light, divine grace,
within it.
I suppose that proving divine grace would be like proving God. It is
the realm of consciousness, not conscious mind. The transition from
one to the other is often a function of "the witness," or that part of
us that allows us to observe ourselves acting, thinking, being etc.
Perhaps this is like the technology you refer to. Being in the
witness requires that we can move outside of our ego aspect, step back
from ourselves. Once this becomes our primary state, we naturally move
into a state where good and evil or any other polarity carries no
charge for us. In other word, we don't feel the good or the bad, or
see AS good or bad, but we see and feel the perfection in all there
is, and recognize the possibility inherent within it. Here, what is
commonly called good and evil exist, but because we can now see it
without that value based charge, we can see the inherent value as part
of the greater whole, not as one or the other polar opposite. Here we
enter a state of grace.
This position of the witness can come upon us quite naturally from
time to time. If we can remember it, and sustain it, we begin to see
the elegance and grace of living. It allows us to examine and live our
relative truth.
There is much more to the witness than this entry level. By witnessing
the THE PROCESS OF THE WITNESS, we begin our direct experience of
absolute truth. This must be done by each of us alone, because we
each have our own relative truth and therefore, path to the absolute
truth. It is an experience, not a construct.
This is the process as I see it. I understand that everyone has their
own relative truth, that we express them to the best of our ability
with the language we have learned, that all are of value, and I
appreciate all viewpoints. I especially appreciate the willingness to
take the time to share and explore and dialogue with enthusiasm.
Molly
On May 29, 12:59 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an ad homonym attack. Knot!
>
> Ambassador From Hell
Pat
May 29, 2008, 9:25:11 AM5/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 29 May, 13:49, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
> I understand what you are saying, Neil, and applaud your passion. But
> I must say I don't agree. I think that truth is always all around us,
> and it is up to each of us to understand it.
>
> Relative truth is presented to us constantly through divine grace. It
> is reflected to us in our experience, formed in our relationships,
> gifted us in dream and intuition.
>
> Absolute truth is given to us in the PROCESS of divine grace - always
> the same for everyone. This process is the immutable laws of the
> universe that we know give it order. Relative truth is given to us in
> the EXPERIENCE of divine grace - everything in our world and the
> workings of it is a reflection of us and who we are in the moment (the
> Essene Mirrors of Relationship.) This is different for everyone and
> structured by their level of consciousness.
>
I agree completely, although I approach it from a slightly
> I must say I don't agree. I think that truth is always all around us,
> and it is up to each of us to understand it.
>
> Relative truth is presented to us constantly through divine grace. It
> is reflected to us in our experience, formed in our relationships,
> gifted us in dream and intuition.
>
> Absolute truth is given to us in the PROCESS of divine grace - always
> the same for everyone. This process is the immutable laws of the
> universe that we know give it order. Relative truth is given to us in
> the EXPERIENCE of divine grace - everything in our world and the
> workings of it is a reflection of us and who we are in the moment (the
> Essene Mirrors of Relationship.) This is different for everyone and
> structured by their level of consciousness.
>
different angle. That would be the relative truth OF the absolute
truth about which we agree. From my paradigm, you hit the nail on the
head by saying that relative truth is presented to us through our
relationships. All the others--experience, dreams and intuition--are
born out of our relationships with 'others'. And, with respect to
absolute truth, I agree that it is in the physical laws of the
universe, for it is that set of laws that allow for everything that
can and will occur. Whilst I see those laws as being constructed by
'The One' and that, by 'the happenstance of that design', are
presented to us all equally, I can admit to it being a form of grace.
They are gifted to us as the absolute rules that cannot be broken.
Equally, by the happenstance of being a part of 'The Many', which IS
'The One', we are gifted relative truth by virtue of being aware
enough to perceive others within 'The Many'.
> Language is part of the experience of divine grace. "There's a blaze
> of light in every word, it doesn't matter which you heard, the holy or
> the broken Hallelujah." This can also be interpreted logically (if I
> speak 9 languages fluently it structures the cognizant abilities of my
> mind) or in spirit (tower of babel) but it is still just a
> relationship tool, until we feel the blaze of light, divine grace,
> within it.
>
> I suppose that proving divine grace would be like proving God.
think I understand your view on it and, I view it as being due to the
happenstance of our existence and the happenstance of the organisation
of the universe. Whilst I don't think I proved God in what I wrote
above, I think the concept of grace as happenstance demonstrates it
logically.
>It is
> the realm of consciousness, not conscious mind. The transition from
> one to the other is often a function of "the witness," or that part of
> us that allows us to observe ourselves acting, thinking, being etc.
> Perhaps this is like the technology you refer to. Being in the
> witness requires that we can move outside of our ego aspect, step back
> from ourselves. Once this becomes our primary state, we naturally move
> into a state where good and evil or any other polarity carries no
> charge for us. In other word, we don't feel the good or the bad, or
> see AS good or bad, but we see and feel the perfection in all there
> is, and recognize the possibility inherent within it. Here, what is
> commonly called good and evil exist, but because we can now see it
> without that value based charge, we can see the inherent value as part
> of the greater whole, not as one or the other polar opposite. Here we
> enter a state of grace.
>
universe allow for that which happens, irrespective of whether or not
we perceive good or evil IN that which happens, its acceptance is
easier and one goes in the grace of God.
> This position of the witness can come upon us quite naturally from
> time to time. If we can remember it, and sustain it, we begin to see
> the elegance and grace of living. It allows us to examine and live our
> relative truth.
>
> There is much more to the witness than this entry level. By witnessing
> the THE PROCESS OF THE WITNESS, we begin our direct experience of
> absolute truth. This must be done by each of us alone, because we
> each have our own relative truth and therefore, path to the absolute
> truth. It is an experience, not a construct.
>
view of consciousness, it's when one attunes to the X axis, the
dimension of individuality. The attuning (witnessing the Witness) is
only possible because of the construction OF consciousness, i.e., you
can only notice the X axis if it exists and is already a part of the
construct of consciousness.
> This is the process as I see it. I understand that everyone has their
> own relative truth, that we express them to the best of our ability
> with the language we have learned, that all are of value, and I
> appreciate all viewpoints. I especially appreciate the willingness to
> take the time to share and explore and dialogue with enthusiasm.
>
> Molly
>
said it better than you did. I get too technical. But that's just
another facet of my relative truth. ;-)
Molly Brogan
May 30, 2008, 9:42:44 AM5/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
"When one understands that the laws of the
universe allow for that which happens, irrespective of whether or not
we perceive good or evil IN that which happens, its acceptance is
easier and one goes in the grace of God."
Thanks, Pat, for your thoughtful reply - all of it. This part, I
universe allow for that which happens, irrespective of whether or not
we perceive good or evil IN that which happens, its acceptance is
easier and one goes in the grace of God."
think, especially lends itself to that conversation in this groups
that crops up from time to time about evil. "respecter if no person"
simply means that values to not effect the workings of universal law -
they continue to work for us whether we understand them or are in tune
with them, or not. Absolute. It doesn't mean that this truth has
more value than relative truth. Each relative truth of the many is
its own part of the glorious design. Our value judgments and moral
codes do come in handy when developing social order, but because they
are based on relative truth, require an overall agreement and
cooperation from the participants. Then again, the phenomenon of the
next generation breaking the molds and changing the paradigm is also
important. So the opposition plays its part in the relative truth.
>
> read more »
Justintruth
May 30, 2008, 3:27:12 PM5/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
Molly, I think that it is possible to start out pre-Satori and attempt
to understand in "ordinary dualistic terms", i.e. to "theorize" and if
the attempt is sincere and rigorous enough it can lead it Satori. In
fact, I believe that if it is successful it will always lead to Satori
- which is different than saying it will always be successful. Once
Satori is achieved further "theorization" can validate it and flesh
out the relationship between it and ordinary "dualistic" thought,
physics, biology, neurology etc.
I agree that experiencing Satori is necessary to understanding but I
think that it is actually a result of - finally - understanding and
therefore I do not think there is "another kind of knowing" - Satori -
that is distinct from theorizing.
I believe that the successful completion of theorizing lies in the
experience of Satori where the contradictions are removed and truth
occurs.
I do not think it is helpful to separate the ideas. If someone is
trapped in Maya they need to reflect on their circumstances. If they
do so successfully they will experience Satori. The experience they
need to have is one of the truth of their circumstances and not one of
"something else".
I further think that the essence of Satori can be stated in a single
dualistic word which upon realization of its meaning causes the
collapse of dualism. That word is Being.
It is true that Maya or Original Sin exist and the realization of
Satori is like a flash - a sudden realization - a damp wind in a dry
climate - but it is not true that it is a realization of anything that
has not been there all along and continues to be even when one is
trapped in illusion.
On May 26, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
> What is truth? How do we find truth? If we find it, can we
> communicate it?
>
> According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated
> by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and
> functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of
> change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused
> and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato,
> Republic)
>
> To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally
> ordered system that is God. To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated
> system in which everything is contained. To Einstein, “the truth of
> the Universe is human truth.”
>
> Modern day philosopher, Ken Wilber, believes that there is a nondual,
> absolute truth, that can only be accessed by Satori, and a relative or
> conventional truth, that is formed by our place in the nested
> hierarchy of being (each higher of which includes the ones beneath it,
> creating a series of nested holons.) Each holon has its own validity
> claim, its own relative partial, but still totally authentic truth.
> Because as a group, we are in different levels of awareness, or
> different holons in the great nest, we have different relative truths.
>
> According to Wilber, the absolute is known only by a direct
> realization involving a transformation in consciousness (satori,
> sahaj, metanoia), and "what" is seen in satori cannot be stated in
> ordinary dualistic words, other than metaphors, poetry, and hints (if
> you want to know God, you must awaken, not merely theorize).
>
> What do YOU think?
to understand in "ordinary dualistic terms", i.e. to "theorize" and if
the attempt is sincere and rigorous enough it can lead it Satori. In
fact, I believe that if it is successful it will always lead to Satori
- which is different than saying it will always be successful. Once
Satori is achieved further "theorization" can validate it and flesh
out the relationship between it and ordinary "dualistic" thought,
physics, biology, neurology etc.
I agree that experiencing Satori is necessary to understanding but I
think that it is actually a result of - finally - understanding and
therefore I do not think there is "another kind of knowing" - Satori -
that is distinct from theorizing.
I believe that the successful completion of theorizing lies in the
experience of Satori where the contradictions are removed and truth
occurs.
I do not think it is helpful to separate the ideas. If someone is
trapped in Maya they need to reflect on their circumstances. If they
do so successfully they will experience Satori. The experience they
need to have is one of the truth of their circumstances and not one of
"something else".
I further think that the essence of Satori can be stated in a single
dualistic word which upon realization of its meaning causes the
collapse of dualism. That word is Being.
It is true that Maya or Original Sin exist and the realization of
Satori is like a flash - a sudden realization - a damp wind in a dry
climate - but it is not true that it is a realization of anything that
has not been there all along and continues to be even when one is
trapped in illusion.
On May 26, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
> What is truth? How do we find truth? If we find it, can we
> communicate it?
>
> According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated
> by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and
> functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of
> change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused
> and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato,
> Republic)
>
> To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally
> ordered system that is God. To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated
> system in which everything is contained. To Einstein, “the truth of
> the Universe is human truth.”
>
> Modern day philosopher, Ken Wilber, believes that there is a nondual,
> absolute truth, that can only be accessed by Satori, and a relative or
> conventional truth, that is formed by our place in the nested
> hierarchy of being (each higher of which includes the ones beneath it,
> creating a series of nested holons.) Each holon has its own validity
> claim, its own relative partial, but still totally authentic truth.
> Because as a group, we are in different levels of awareness, or
> different holons in the great nest, we have different relative truths.
>
> According to Wilber, the absolute is known only by a direct
> realization involving a transformation in consciousness (satori,
> sahaj, metanoia), and "what" is seen in satori cannot be stated in
> ordinary dualistic words, other than metaphors, poetry, and hints (if
> you want to know God, you must awaken, not merely theorize).
>
> What do YOU think?
Molly Brogan
May 30, 2008, 3:45:14 PM5/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
all roads lead home, Justin. Conversation on the way home, very nice.
ornamentalmind
May 30, 2008, 8:08:03 PM5/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
Yes Justin, there are many paths.
And, of course, intellection, at some point can be a valid one too.
"In Ancient Greek the word praxis referred to activity engaged in by
free men. Aristotle held that there were three basic activities of
man: theoria, poiesis and praxis. There corresponded to these kinds of
activity three types of knowledge: theoretical, to which the end goal
was truth; poietical, to which the end goal was production; and
practical, to which the end goal was action. Aristotle further divided
practical knowledge into ethics, economics and politics. He also
distinguished between eupraxia (good praxis) and dyspraxia (bad
praxis, misfortune). "
While having used numerous methods, I too have found that focussing
upon ones thought processes can result in a type of transcendent
clarity. Also, focussing upon that which does not think can have the
same result.
On May 30, 12:45 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
> > > What do YOU think?- Hide quoted text -
And, of course, intellection, at some point can be a valid one too.
"In Ancient Greek the word praxis referred to activity engaged in by
free men. Aristotle held that there were three basic activities of
man: theoria, poiesis and praxis. There corresponded to these kinds of
activity three types of knowledge: theoretical, to which the end goal
was truth; poietical, to which the end goal was production; and
practical, to which the end goal was action. Aristotle further divided
practical knowledge into ethics, economics and politics. He also
distinguished between eupraxia (good praxis) and dyspraxia (bad
praxis, misfortune). "
While having used numerous methods, I too have found that focussing
upon ones thought processes can result in a type of transcendent
clarity. Also, focussing upon that which does not think can have the
same result.
On May 30, 12:45 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
Gordon
Jun 8, 2008, 2:08:31 PM6/8/08
to "Minds Eye"
On May 26, 9:33 pm, Molly Brogan <mbro...@mollybroganenterprises.com>
wrote:
that which is
not within the conscious mind but invoked at the subconscious level to
be mitigated
down at the unconscious. In short, what one has to realise prior into
an awakened state
that supersedes the awareness quite so much like the time delay of the
first sunlight at
dawn which has been afterall shaken off from its steadfast truth of
always having been there all the time.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages