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.

 

Three layers of Reality.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
there is the body-mind-soul layers of reality, but the absolute Godhead is beyond all dualities and layers, it is one and one alone. The unmoved mover, one without a second, the unified singularity.




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Wow, that is one heck of a way to win an argument. I have a sort of guilty-happiness from you posting that U2U. Guilt because that was obviously personal and private. Happy because some of Unity's past arguments have just fed my own skepticism. While I am sympathetic to his tragic loss, I am happy to know why he responds to these posts the way he does. My sincerest well wishes to Unity in dealing with his life's lessons.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Reality is reality. There aren't levels of reality, there just is what there is. People have long believed in a separation of mind and matter, but I think this is a delusion. How is it that I may slip, hit my head, damage a region, and never be the same? It's because the mind is synonymous with the physical systems of the body; namely the brain.


Corliss Lamont made this assertion, but it was nulled when the radio/music analogy was stated



All the arguments mentioned above that are opposed to the empirical possibility of survival are based upon a certain assumption of the relationship between mind and body that usually goes unstated. For instance, one of the arguments mentioned earlier starts with the observation that a severe blow to the head can cause the cessation of consciousness; from this it is concluded that consciousness is produced by a properly functioning brain, and so cannot exist in its absence.

However, this conclusion is not based on the evidence alone. There is an implicit, unstated assumption behind this argument, and it is often unconsciously employed. The hidden premise behind this argument can be illustrated with the analogy of listening to
music on a radio, smashing the radio’s receiver, and thereby concluding that the radio was producing the music. The implicit assumption made in all the arguments discussed above was that the relationship between brain activity and consciousness was always one of cause to effect, and never that of effect to cause. But this assumption is not known to be true, and it is not the only conceivable one consistent with the observed facts mentioned earlier. Just as consistent with the observed facts is the idea that the brain’s function is that of an intermediary between mind and body – or in other words, that the brain’s function is that of a receiver-transmitter – sometimes from body to mind, and sometimes from mind to body.






[edit on 24-5-2010 by GrandKitaro777]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I'll just answer your three question.

Physical reality is as you said. The realm in which we experience.
Cognitive reality are the personal definition that we place upon that experience and I am the self that enforces those definition upon that experience in which we exist.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by unityemissions
Wouldn't this be an opinion based on your reality of your reality of reality.


No I base it more on thinks like this U2U we shared:


Originally posted by unityemissions
Ian,

I too have had horrible precognitive experiences. A few months before my brother passed away, I became deeply concerned that he was heading down the wrong path. I actually flipped out on him once and claimed he was doing something he wasn't. That's not like me. We got along well.

The day that he died I was very sad and didn't know why. I went to my best friend and started balling. Neither of us could make sense of it. I just said that I hurt a lot. The next morning my family came to my residence. I saw their faces and knew someone close had passed. I asked who had died. My father said, "Aaron was in an accident last nite". I started screaming and balling. I knew before he said anything further.

I don't want this gift. I don't recall ever asking for it. It only pops up when something must be known. It feels as if someone is yelling at me trying to knock some sense into me. Whatever this is, I choose not to recognize it. The burden is too much to bear. I've felt the pain in the world before. I've heard a million+ people screaming, crying, and pleaing for mercy. It's nearly enough to literally rip my very cells from the body it supports.

I guess you are stronger than I, or perhaps my experiences are of a stronger magnitude. I don't know. I just can't go down that road again until I must.


Which speaks far greater then how you are acting and behaving right now on this thread.

You have to face it. One day.


First off, this was from a series of u2u's. He choose to show just this one, and it's misleading and entirely out of context.

YAD, the fact that you choose to show something which was obviously private on a public forum speaks volumes about your character. Shame on you for this, and for lying out of context.

You've made my foe list.




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Interesting to see people's responses to your OP - S & F.

I have one statement:

If Cognitive Reality were the same as Phsyical Reality we would all be able to do telekinesis naturally - but most of us can't.

Rather than be a big part of this I'll just link a thread I started a few days ago. It's quite opposite than ur OP but I wonder if it influenced you at all.

Material reality is not what we think it is.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by idontKNOWanything
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Wow, that is one heck of a way to win an argument. I have a sort of guilty-happiness from you posting that U2U. Guilt because that was obviously personal and private. Happy because some of Unity's past arguments have just fed my own skepticism. While I am sympathetic to his tragic loss, I am happy to know why he responds to these posts the way he does. My sincerest well wishes to Unity in dealing with his life's lessons.


Well, it's not to win an argument. Rather to point out that his tirade and rant in this thread is not the Unity I have come to know and love. It's one thing to bring intelligent discussion to a thread, and another to just go on the attack and defame people and call them nut jobs and ignorant.

So, in light of that I decided to remind him that I see more to his character then this Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde character swing that I see him riding.

He can do better. I expect a lot more from him then a pile of rubbish that he's throwing around for what ever reasons. If he doesn't like me for that, well... so be it.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by idontKNOWanything
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Wow, that is one heck of a way to win an argument. I have a sort of guilty-happiness from you posting that U2U. Guilt because that was obviously personal and private. Happy because some of Unity's past arguments have just fed my own skepticism. While I am sympathetic to his tragic loss, I am happy to know why he responds to these posts the way he does. My sincerest well wishes to Unity in dealing with his life's lessons.


Well, it's not to win an argument. Rather to point out that his tirade and rant in this thread is not the Unity I have come to know and love. It's one thing to bring intelligent discussion to a thread, and another to just go on the attack and defame people and call them nut jobs and ignorant.


Take back these false accusations, liar. I never called anyone a nut job or said they're ignorant. The only negative word I mentioned was psychosis.



So, in light of that I decided to remind him that I see more to his character then this Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde character swing that I see him riding.


I see then, the fact that I attempted to inject some logic into this thread didn't sit well with you, so you decided to make it personal. You didn't show me more to my character, you showed a lack of your own. Don't you dare try to say this was your intent. That's a lie and you know it! If this were the case, you would have u2u'd me.



He can do better. I expect a lot more from him then a pile of rubbish that he's throwing around for what ever reasons. If he doesn't like me for that, well... so be it.



Ahhh...so your perspective is reality, and mine is a pile of rubbish. Sounds like a god-complex evolving there.

So that we're perfectly clear, I am now your foe because you choose to repeatedly lie, and because you put something private on this public board.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Take back these false accusations, liar. I never called anyone a nut job or said they're ignorant. The only negative word I mentioned was psychosis.



Originally posted by unityemissions
Yeah well, I'm negative towards these ideas because they directly contribute to a mass of ignorance that humanity doesn't have the time play around with.

You guys have your fun in la-la land.

I'm done here.



Hmm... la la land = nut job or am I missing something. *rubs eyes*

Mass ignorance for discussing these ideas? Hmmm... seems like you are calling us ignorant.

Maybe I am still in la la land.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Yep, you sure are.

La-la land means fantasizing. Just because someone fantasizes doesn't make them a nut job. That term seems to be reserved for rapists, serial-killers, and other types of psychopaths.

Saying that an idea leads to a mass of ignorance isn't the same as calling someone ignorant. I didn't call anyone here ignorant.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
If you give some days to finish digesting The Kybalion I'll be so happy to contribute onto this thread with my own version and not like copy-pasting like I'll do it now... Just finished the book yesterday and all the info is still "raw" on my mind



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Isn't 'reality' defined by its gravitas?

isn't inescapable tragedy the most 'real' thing one can think of?
Painfully real?

So my thought is to escape reality. Make up your own stuff. Make up non-reality, which perhaps is what life is really all about.
Reality is abysmal so life is all about creation of the fantastic. The anti-abysmal.

Life is the anti-abysmal. [sounds like some antacid product/tablet
]

Life is the departure from the abyss into fantasy & the fantastic.
of course maybe it has to do it on the 'down-low' to evade the abyss of 'reality'.

Chaotic, non-asymptotic, rhythmatic, hypnotic, trancesendic to launch you beyond reality. A don't know it poet to make sure you don't blow it. Inhale it don't impale it, but what about impailing it? yeah, nay or maybe wait another day? wail the impailing, sing your sling or sling your sing but don't sink unless it it is your pation. chromiscuity? to suck your bludgeons out of the blue dungeons into the feather mights of tickler heavy lights.
Sail the seven seas in a supersonic catamaran, built of color, light & populated with interesting & uninvited guests.

Does reality try to be the death knell to imagination?
As though it finished all questions & arguments.
Time though keeps it so busy it manages to slip a little something in on the side from time to time.

Reality can only be real in opposition to the un-real,
which even if it exists as an idea is still in some quantity real,
so it is perhaps a self-defeating ethos, at least until all of our minds are dead.

Is 'reality' the [ultimate?] mind killer? imagination killer?

Keep your mind alive & you will always be at least a little 'un-real'.

The bigger [more powerful?] your mind the more 'un-real' you are?

by that Marvin shouldn't have been so depressed, should he?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
To further confuse matters one must remember that your cognitive understanding perception of the world is dependent on your sensors. For example your brain can only decode what the eye gives the brain, even if the eye could see infrared, there is nothing to say our brain could decode that. So we all know that things exist out of our five senses, science as proved that, yet we cannot perceive them, but they are still part of our reality and thus can shape it. So i think our perception of reality, the self, and any cognitive permutations are not enough to explain reality, only our very subjective view of reality. Because of this limiting factor, we are often forced to leave behind conventional science and cognitive mechanisms, and explore the self, the I as you put it to better understand the truth of our reality. By the way Freud and Jung are no longer taught at Psychology undergrad in detail, because they touch on these ideas



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
This is what I don't understand about the new age spiritual stuff. Are the kids starving in Africa and dieing of aids and malaria creating their reality? We've got people here spouting off "you create your reality, all is perfect, all is one" and you've got KIDS DIEING, starving, losing their mothers and fathers. Surely they didn't reincarnate and choose that? Who would want to live an existence on a god forsaken continent to be born, starve, maybe catch a disease if your lucky, watch both your mom and dad die, and then die yourself. Really? They chose this?

It's easy to say life is just a dream, or it's not real, or it's real but we are eternal when you have a bed to sleep on, a house, a car, a fridge full of food, and the luxury to have internet to discuss such a thing. What do you tell those kids starving to death? Create a banana with their mind? Seriously, WAKE UP, you new agers think you are awake and enlightened because you think you've discovered how life works? The REAL enlightened people and the ones that can wake up to the fact life isn't all peaches. NEVER will we move forward as a species living in some fantasy land.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by doped00
This is what I don't understand about the new age spiritual stuff. Are the kids starving in Africa and dieing of aids and malaria creating their reality? We've got people here spouting off "you create your reality, all is perfect, all is one" and you've got KIDS DIEING, starving, losing their mothers and fathers. Surely they didn't reincarnate and choose that? Who would want to live an existence on a god forsaken continent to be born, starve, maybe catch a disease if your lucky, watch both your mom and dad die, and then die yourself. Really? They chose this?


If you put into perspective a non-physical existence where by you originally have no comprehension of any "physical reality" let alone a human experience, what would your first impression be?

If what the general leading metaphysical impression is, and this is stemming from research at The Monroe Institute, and even some casual accounts like this video about a young boy remembering a past life and having it validated.



Just to dip in that pot for a taste... then technically all things Human are actually quite alien to our adventurous non-physical counter-part self.

There is a great interview with the late Robert A. Monroe where he touches on these possibilities. I highly recommend watching the entire interview to broaden your overview of the human experience.





Originally posted by doped00
It's easy to say life is just a dream, or it's not real, or it's real but we are eternal when you have a bed to sleep on, a house, a car, a fridge full of food, and the luxury to have internet to discuss such a thing. What do you tell those kids starving to death? Create a banana with their mind? Seriously, WAKE UP, you new agers think you are awake and enlightened because you think you've discovered how life works? The REAL enlightened people and the ones that can wake up to the fact life isn't all peaches. NEVER will we move forward as a species living in some fantasy land.


It's easy to say life is a physical reality, when there is really no subjective way to prove that what is physical is absolute, rather we can only measure limited amounts of "reality" information and make conclusions based on the most obvious systems and how they behave and act.

Belief plays a fundamental role in everything you experience. You are shaped and molded by belief and that belief can even be a scientific theory that feels real, but is just an appeaser of your intellect.

If you take "Dreams" and just piss on them, like most do... certainly they can be discarded as pointless and meaningless. The same applies to your life. It only has a measurement because you are here to observe and experience it.

Dreams are the same, they have a potential to be measured and experienced by you. How this relates to any of us is irrelevant because like your life, you subjectively render an experience based data that you obtain through sensory input and then validate and explore through your beliefs, and theories.

Are dreams a type of reality? I would argue yes. Although unique to each of us (like life is) they are a part of us (like life is) yet a part of us that we create and can control.

Makes for interesting sleeps once you get the control part remembered again.

Since dreams exist in nearly every living system that appears to have some measure of consciousness, I'd say a "belief" in them isn't new age rather scientific fact.

It's when what you dream, and it comes true some day later... apply what ever monkey grease you want on that.





[edit on 28-5-2010 by YouAreDreaming]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Yes, I have read all of Monroe's books. I have educated myself on the possibility of a non-physical existence. Let's say there is a non-physical existence, why then do you "forget"? If EVERYONE absolutely KNEW this was just an experience and survived physical death, the world would be a whole lot better. I am also in the process of keeping a dream journal.

I guess I find myself torn between believing this is all there is and believing this is just an experience. I mean, why wouldn't you believe this is all there is? Can you really blame me and the people that do? Look around you, the world is full of suffering whether it's the kids in Africa, or the single mom working overtime at two jobs, or suffering because of your desires like Buddha said.

So why the need to "forget" then? That's what I'm hung up on.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Your model assumes that the cognitive self can perceive all of reality with the senses or the mind, that's a big leap of faith.

We also know that the nature of reality can change as we develop tools to perceive it on new levels and that even with those tools at times reality cannot be perceived completely, like position and momentum in quantum mechanics.

en.wikipedia.org...

I see where you are going with your model but as at least one other poster has suggested your model all comes back to self. A very "human" model of reality it is.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by slane69
 



Your model assumes that the cognitive self can perceive all of reality with the senses or the mind, that's a big leap of faith.


I would hazard an educated guess that your assuming that his model assumes that the self can perceive all of reality.

From how I've read it, he simply states that there is physical reality, followed by cognitive reality which perceives what it does of physical reality and this leads to the self aspect of reality that experiences these perceptions of reality.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by slane69
 



Your model assumes that the cognitive self can perceive all of reality with the senses or the mind, that's a big leap of faith.


I would hazard an educated guess that your assuming that his model assumes that the self can perceive all of reality.

From how I've read it, he simply states that there is physical reality, followed by cognitive reality which perceives what it does of physical reality and this leads to the self aspect of reality that experiences these perceptions of reality.


To an extent yes but in calling reality "physical" you are placing limits on it based upon the limits of self.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by slane69

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by slane69
 



Your model assumes that the cognitive self can perceive all of reality with the senses or the mind, that's a big leap of faith.


I would hazard an educated guess that your assuming that his model assumes that the self can perceive all of reality.

From how I've read it, he simply states that there is physical reality, followed by cognitive reality which perceives what it does of physical reality and this leads to the self aspect of reality that experiences these perceptions of reality.


To an extent yes but in calling reality "physical" you are placing limits on it based upon the limits of self.


No, the limit is placed on the cognitive reality to perceive, which thus is translated over to the self by default as the one experiencing the cognitive reality. As the OP rightfully stated, cognitive reality is dependent upon physical reality in order to exist, and self reality is dependent upon cognitive reality to exist.

Really, our perception of reality is less than what exists in reality. Our range of perception can't translate all of reality to the self. We can't see reality in the infrared or UV spectrum, we can't decode radio waves or feel magnetic fields. The reality of the self is less than the reality of the cognitive which is a fraction of physical reality.

At least, this is what I feel the OP is trying to convey to us.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join