Re: Mind's Eye Re: The Unconscious

Simply for simplicity reasons, it's a strong image. I might have said: the author and his book, the founder and his company, the developer and his creation, the scientist and his findings, etc.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:56 PM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why take the perspective from the mother? I don't believe in
reincarnation but do find family traits acceptable. One friend joked-
with love- that my mother's cord was really an anchor chain from a
battleship.

On Mar 18, 8:17 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rigs, this interpretation looks too short sighted. Or the other way
> round - you know what I mean. Anyways, I would postulate that the so called
> afterlife (a too two-dimensional translation by the way) begins as soon as
> the navel cord of whatever you accept to be your baby has been cut. In that
> respect or from that perspective is commonly achievable to be able to
> oversee and remember even more that one afterlife.
>
>
>

> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I believe the memories remaining with the living or creations left
> > behind- even our genetic codes- are our afterlife. The lure of an
> > afterlife is to give hope to those who found real life pretty
> > miserable plus provides a rationale for various religious and moral
> > rules. What was the sale of Indulgences during the Middle Ages except
> > a form of a protection racket?
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:58 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some people believe in an after-life because some people claim to
> > > remember past births , experience is on their side , they say. You
> > > might as well believe in ghosts and ghouls because some people claim
> > > to have experienced them. So much for experience !
>
> > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died before ?
>
> > > > We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or
> > > > incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We hardly know
> > > > what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the 10 to
> > > > power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine what we
> > > > do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the future !
>
> > > > Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem rude but
> > > > should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this God ?
> > > > What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog word "
> > > > Nature " ?
>
> > > > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of something
> > > > diseased within us !
>
> > > > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have
> > > > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and still be
> > > > understandable.
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Good
> > > >> Allan
> > > >> On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and myself , but
> > when I
> > > >> > am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a state of
> > supreme
> > > >> > peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that is the
> > ultimate
> > > >> > state from which nobody returns.
>
> > > >> > On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote:
>
> > > >> >> This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question doesn't
> > sound
> > > >> >> critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount of
> > > >> >> difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to
> > translate
> > > >> >> away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We
> > could
> > > >> >> easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the trees, and
> > > >> >> that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I
> > prefer
> > > >> >> to start with the will representing laws of nature which are
> > dynamic,
> > > >> >> and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is
> > obvious
> > > >> >> that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is an
> > > >> >> aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially infinite,
> > > >> >> then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations than
> > > >> >> static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful perspective
> > > >> >> that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless case.
> > > >> >> Perhaps you have something to help me?
>
> > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature but a
> > > >> >> > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not dead,
> > as
> > > >> >> > that would have meant no life , further it has to be unconscious
> > as
> > > >> >> > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual.
>
> > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement.  Some
> > scientists
> > > >> >> >> have suggested we could make a universe with life conditions in
> > the
> > > >> >> >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings.
> >  Science
> > > >> >> >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order to
> > travel
> > > >> >> >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by
> > occupying
> > > >> >> >> earlier stages of them.  I tend to think of the unconscious as
> > what
> > > >> >> >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is inadequate
> > as much
> > > >> >> >> human consciousness in action is not known to the participants
> > > >> >> >> rationally.
>
> > > >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an unconscious
> > Nature
> > > >> >> >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every action
> > and
> > > >> >> >>> inaction.
>
> > > >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >>> > That doesn't help RP.  Why this rather than a host of
> > alternatives?
>
> > > >> >> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether and
> > > >> >> consciousness ,
> > > >> >> >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious and
> > without
> > > >> >> >>> >> attributes.
>
> > > >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh
> > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the
> > Creation
> > > >> >> which
> > > >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you
> > have
> > > >> >> choice , but
> > > >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the
> > trajectory
> > > >> >> of the
> > > >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is
> > bound
> > > >> >> by laws and
> > > >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of
> > God".
> > > >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh
> > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the
> > Creation
> > > >> >> which
> > > >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you
> > have
> > > >> >> choice , but
> > > >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the
> > trajectory
> > > >> >> of the
> > > >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is
> > bound
> > > >> >> by laws and
> > > >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of
> > God".- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -