It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spirit Material?

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Itisnowagain

For some of us Itisnowagain, it is not fun (as Peter Brown stated) being left in the dark or just accepting what it is, it is.

Does what is happening, occurring, appearing presently need anyone to accept it before it can appear? This is arising without condition - whatever this is that is arising is dissolving - it needs no permission to do this.
Labels and words that try to define whatever is happening are also arising and subsiding.
No thing ever actually happens - spirit is constantly appearing different.


Perhaps some us are more questioning than others and whatever is arising then dissolves and needs no permission to do this - some of us want to understand the process and perhaps control it.

Perhaps when the answer is found the questioner will vanish.


When the answer is found then perhaps control may be in our grasp, so we can then vanish if we so decide.

What is it that you want to control?


All facets of my existence on any plane.

Existence is now.
There maybe the assumption that there is you and now but really now is what is appearing to exist.
Now is constant and constantly appearing different.


Whatever now is, whatever I am, I desire to understand and control, or manipulate it.

Well 'you' can't because you are now.
To be or not to be? That is the question.

Are you or are you not? Well you are but you are not a particular thing - you are all there is.


Sometimes I am and sometimes I am not, but within these limited experiences, some I can control and some I cannot. I desire to control the ethereal experiences at my whim.

There is so much confusion because there is a belief in things.
You think you are a thing. You think you think.
But there isn't 'someone in there' - there is no in or out to experience.
Experience is one - it is not made of two.

“By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.” — George Carlin.
Language makes believe that there are things.

You think you are a thing that can control things.
Know Thyself.


Yes, I believe our consciousness and/or spirit force does create our reality, whether that be physical, semi-physical, or holographic. Regardless, it is a state or states which I desire to understand and manipulate. Now that would be fun.




posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Theosist

I suspect those that state spirit does not exist are creating their reality to fit their beliefs.
edit on 17CDT09America/Chicago04490931 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Theosist

Whats "g"?

Happy to listen to your input on the "matter".


Anything that exists in our universe, whether seen or unseen, broken down into and analyzed in the purest and most basic form, consists of pure energy or light which resonates and exists as a vibratory frequency or pattern.


It’s called a “typo”.

More nonsense. First, you think you can get away with using words like “consist of”, whose meaning is clear when speaking of real atomic structures like house built of bricks but doesn’ have any such clear meaning when used in the context of ontology - well, one can get away with that sort of blather in a conversation with omens, but it’s not going to fly past anyone with a technical education in analytic philosophy, who will see it for the bait-and-switch of unconscious linguistic trickery that it is. Secondly, your proposition has not been shown in any sense regarding any of the phenomena of consciousness or sensory experience - I can take this lovely red of the chair in which I’m currently sitting as an example and watch you do intellectual backflips trying to claim that it’s not what it is but is “really” a quantitative state of an abstract theoretical object of physics or “really” a system electromagnetic “energy” in the brain, where “really is” is never defined and the supposed causal process by which we can get from one to the other never explained. And that brings us to point three:

pure energy or light which resonates and exists as a vibratory frequency or pattern

Oh boy. Is that meant to pass as a definition? Energy or light exist as a “vibratory frequency”? Of what? A “vibratory frequency” is a property of something; something has to be vibrating in order for there to be a “vibratory frequency”, and if that something is once again energy or light, you’ve said nothing.

As for my contribution, I’ve already given my statement: “spiritual matter” is a contradiction in terms, Spirit is an ontological category of its own that does not consist of or reduce to some universal substance more fundamental than itself, much less a material one as practically every answer in this thread presupposes.

What’s dumbest of all is this New-Age-inspired pseudo-mysticism which is just as monistic and reductionist as metaphysical naturalism (having its origins in the same 19th century milieu and piggy-backing off of the esteem of physical science by aping its terminology - back then it was talking of “vibrations” and “energy” and psychologising the spiritual, now it’s throwing terms like “quantum” and “dimension” into the mix). Actual mystical tradition, on the other hand, is inherently dualistic in this regard, whether it is expressed as spirit forming matter, logos forming chaos, yang and yin, the union of Shiva and Shakti, or whatever else, it recognised the plain and self-evident phenomenal reality of two broad categories of created being which interact to shape the cosmos but are not reducible one to the other. This thread mixes pseudoscience with bad mysticism concocted and understood through equally bad philosophy.
edit on 9-7-2018 by Theosist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Theosist

You haven't a clue either, just like the rest of us.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Theosist

Why so angry, or so it seems? LoL

The problem is that metaphysics and physics are somewhat diametrically opposed.

Hence rather hard to reconcile.

Tell us what you think then instead of how everyone else is wrong???

Crap or get off the pot, please.

I freely admit i dont really have a clue as to how reality and the universe functions, nevermind how spirit/essence/souls fits into the mix, nobody does to date.
edit on 9-7-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

neoholographic has a thread that may be of interest if you have not already seen it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, physics is real, and metaphysics is imaginary.
edit on 9-7-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Is our reality, real through?

Might be holographic by nature.

Once we are able to measure the individual unit of Planck time we may even be able to realistically determine such.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: InTheLight

neoholographic has a thread that may be of interest if you have not already seen it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh, yes, of great interest.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Woodcarver

Is our reality, real through?

Might be holographic by nature.

Once we are able to measure the individual unit of Planck time we may even be able to realistically determine such.


Can you imagine software in a desktop computer trying to measure and detect out side itself when it doesn't have the tools to do so but is unaware because the outside is unknown.... That's us



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xBWOMPx

Can you imagine 'all that is' believing there is an inside and outside?



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, physics is real, and metaphysics is imaginary.

Ah, like a metaphysical 10,000 dollars...



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Like Bitcoin?

Or any other denomination of monies for that matter. LoL



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, physics is real, and metaphysics is imaginary.

Ah, like a metaphysical 10,000 dollars...


Lol. It really irks you that i’m offering up this money. I assure you, i could give several of these away. If multiple people come up with abilities, they will all be taken care of.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, physics is real, and metaphysics is imaginary.

Ah, like a metaphysical 10,000 dollars...


Lol. It really irks you that i’m offering up this money. I assure you, i could give several of these away. If multiple people come up with abilities, they will all be taken care of.

I have an ability.
Kinda like a sixth sense.

I just know when someone's telling lies.



Anyway, I'm still interested in your proposal of testing for the non-physical/immaterial with physical/immaterial means.

I asked the question earlier but you chose to focus on a joke instead for some reason...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join