Science 'versus' God?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Is the murderer, rapist and theif, also equal to you, Pat...?

Lloyd

Hi Drifter;

I don't find anybody above me, including Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, or whoever.

I find no one below me, including the dumb, the criminals, the young or infirmed or whoever.

I believe I am equal to all people and all people are equal to me.

Best,

Pat

[Drifter]

All things belong to God alone.
Life is like being a teller in a bank.
If one grows attachments to things which do not belong to them, the laws are broken and there will be consequence's to pay.
The life drama unfolds within the dream but the dreamer has no more control over them than you do over your dreams at night.
But the Life-Dreamer is the same One in all of us, dreaming the life-dream from different perspectives.
There is only the life-dreamer dreaming the life-dream, from myriad perspectives.

The world exists in you as a world you also exist in.

It's quite a Bizzaro world, when you think about it.

Yesterday's History and

Tomorrow's a Mystery,

Todays a Gift and

That's why it's called

The Present.

[Profpat]

Is the murderer, rapist and theif, also equal to you, Pat...?

Lloyd

Of course Lloyd. Hate the sin love the sinner.

Best,

Pat

[Drifter]

Everything is arising spontaneously, like a dream, from unconscious awareness.
But awareness becomes conscious of the life-dream through us as individuals.
And when awareness is conscious of something through an individual it has the opportunity to consciously decide how to react. This is the experience we call 'choice'.
Through you as an individual the life-dreamer becomes conscious of the intention to act before the action itself happens, and can, therefore, choose to act or refrain from acting.

[Drifter]

Of course Lloyd. Hate the sin love the sinner.

Best,

Pat

Remind's me of the quote; "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Maybe that was the root of Jesus' teaching to 'love thy enemy'.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If you follow the rules of set theory, this is the outcome; The set of all sets, does not contain the set of itself, i.e., The god of all gods, does not contain the god of itself, i.e., the spirit, soul, mind, anything, of all mentioned, and mentionable, does not contain the same of itself... There's no way out, unless you break the rules of logic and knowledge, as Godel mathematically proved this very incompleteness, in 1930, and by inserting even incompleteness, or completeness, in the set formula, you're are still left defunct of the subjective reality of god, having any validity...

The scientific accepts the incompletenesses of itself, as known facts... Your god is eternally, mathematically incomplete___The infinite recursion facts... Not even a god can know its future___It's eternally, infinitely undefined, by and within its self-concept, especially since a universe is c delimited, to all knowledge processing...

But, the subjective anomaly will always ignore the facts, in favor of pseudo-faith and false belief...

Lloyd

p.s.
Page 39, or 3*13, great numbers...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thanks Pat, for at least admitting, you do hate... I rest my case...

Lloyd

Of course Lloyd. Hate the sin love the sinner.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Thanks Pat, for at least admitting, you do hate... I rest my case...

Lloyd

Your welcome.

[Drifter]

Your welcome.

At least there is no conceit in your honesty Professor.

[Drifter]

[quote=Lloyd Gillespie;42303]If you follow the rules of set theory, this is the outcome; The set of all sets, does not contain the set of itself, i.e., The god of all gods, does not contain the god of itself, i.e., the spirit, soul, mind, anything, of all mentioned, and mentionable, does not contain the same of itself... There's no way out, unless you break the rules of logic and knowledge, as Godel mathematically proved this very incompleteness, in 1930, and by inserting even incompleteness, or completeness, in the set formula, you're are still left defunct of the subjective reality of god, having any validity...

The scientific accepts the incompletenesses of itself, as known facts... Your god is eternally, mathematically incomplete___The infinite recursion facts... Not even a god can know its future___It's eternally, infinitely undefined, by and within its self-concept, especially since a universe is c delimited, to all knowledge processing...

But, the subjective anomaly will always ignore the facts, in favor of pseudo-faith and false belief...

Lloyd

Both by Thought and Feeling

(Presented at 2004 FranklinMerrell-WolffConference
GreatSpaceCenter, Lone Pine, CA)

Ron Leonard

When Franklin says, “both by thought and feeling,” this suggests that there are different aspects of our own nature or awareness that are peculiar to how we live the world, and how we orient to the Transcendent. He contends that we should determine our psychological strength so as to use it to progress toward our goals. This implies that self-knowledge is the first aspect of knowledge to concern us, so the first distinction to make is whether each of us is primarily a feeling type, a thinking type, or whatever.
Next we should consider the aspects of individuality that goes beyond simple thinking and feeling to those that make us unique. It is important then to come to an awareness of it so as to be able to access the values through it. This refers to the notion that Franklin was advancing a yoga that has more to do with individuality, or self-knowledge, than anything we have seen before.
By way of overview, let us consider three primary aspects of thought:
1. a psychological treatment of the three primary modes of consciousness (cognition, affection, and conation), as opposed to other ways to categorize it,
2. a specific focus on Franklin’s treatment of different kinds of thought (perception, conception, and Introception),
3. Application of thought in the direction of Transcendent Consciousness.
Modes of Relative Consciousness

The three modes of consciousness are cognition (thinking), affection (feeling), and conation (willing), which correlate to the three Indian approaches to spirituality, namely, jñana, bhakti, and karma yoga—the trimarga. These refer to knowledge, devotion, and action or works, respectively. Jñana is not just cognition as thinking, but has to do with a perceptual kind of knowledge (vidya) that reveals the true nature of things. This ultimately leads to Knowledge of the Self that constitutes the Liberation from suffering (ignorance, or avidya) that is sought.
The sense of devotion in bhakti is toward the Divine. It is, in a sense, an aspiration of one’s own soul toward the Transcendent. Karma yoga involves more practical action, perhaps dedicated to the same end, but more concrete and ritualized.
Turning within, each of us will sense a primary affinity for one of these three. However, it would not be uncommon to find a balance or combination of these. Whereas Franklin advocated developing the side for which we have the greatest facility, and using it to achieve a breakthrough, Carl Jung and Sri Aurobindo recommend striving for balance.
In Franklin’s treatment of psychology, he breaks it down somewhat differently. He gives precedence or the primary view to cognition, but here cognition is that which is pure, and that is knowing intrinsic concepts, so that only after language was developed would this sort of mode of relative consciousness be possible. This also relies on the power of abstraction, so the concept itself is an abstraction from the concrete warp and woof of our own experience, from which we then rearrange these relations of concepts into thinkable understanding after what has actually happened.
Below that he lists affection, but here what he would include is covered by both the Western view of affection as well as conation, the active aspect in our psyche—that which impels us to action. So, along with the specific feelings that he lists—love, hate, anger, desire, fear, a feeling of justice/injustice—there is also the impulse from our own emotional nature or passions toward responding to certain situations, toward acting appropriately (or inappropriately) in the world, and so on. The impulse to action, by itself, gets us into trouble. However, ethical principles alone are impotent. As David Hume asserts, without some connection to our emotional nature, our whole ethical structure is without any means for impelling one toward activating the principles that one might intellectually affirm.
On the third level, below affection, is what Franklin calls sensation, that which is passive and prelinguistic, having nothing to do with concepts. It is something that we might share with our animal nature. As has been amply demonstrated, there is an animal nature that passively experiences the world, having sense perception, which is able to distinguish certain things without presumably being able to think about it or conceive how one might deal with it.
This is the layer of consciousness with which he is least concerned, for when he attained Recognition, or Fundamental Realization, it had least impact upon the sensing nature. It had more on the feelings, or affection, but primarily it impacted the cognitive aspect, as he conceived thought to be.
This is interesting because it is not just simple thinking as a logical organization of concepts. “Thought” is a mass noun as well as a discrete noun, which has implications for what he calls Transcendent Thought, thought that is, in a sense, transcendent of all concepts—formless. Even so, at the same time, its reflection within our own psyches can take on possibly a thinking or knowing or feeling aspect. It is the Root of both thought and feeling. At that level it is formless; it is only within our psyches that it becomes differentiated. In and of itself, that which he calls Transcendent Thought is unconditioned and formless, above what we would identify as thought. To a nonthinking being it would not appear as thought at all.

contd.