There Is No Such Thing As Non-Physical Reality!

My Higher Self, in contact with me, actually asked me this, "Do you think you ever truly leave home?" Which is a whole other issue.

This entire infinite inwards universe could be A DVD playing, except its really non homogenous, each star sytsem its own DVD, its own frequency realms, time, consciousness, and we don't get see most of what'st there, we only see a tiny amount of the UV spectrum for our spirit's slice of conscious intellect playing through the projector of the brain in this body suit, with its limiting programs.

So in reality the DVD player is playing infinite Dvd's simultaneously. And we can only see what fits into the small data chunks that our brain can decipher.

But my HS showed me, two things, first lying on a cot, back home, with Family/loved ones, behind this very thin veil of a curtain.

And then the big red movie curtains pulling back and there was this movie, forever playing, you could say, an instructional video, and we were playing some of those parts. I was determined at that point, no more bloopers, allowed.

Also, lets look metaphorically at what it means that you havent really left home and the real world.

As infinite Spirits, with Family and worlds, you have wonderful things to do and learn, and experience, and your goal is growth, of consciousness, and when you learn its akin primarily to downloading information, though there are instructors too, we're not islands.

But then the quickest way to make it real and master the material is to enter a simulated reality where time is completely different. So, a minute real time, may seem like 50 years, there, and you master the course material, or fail to master it properly and feel you let family down alot and spend alot longer taking the long road home, so for some a billion years seemingly pass in that moment.

Its really best to ask you soul frequently why you're here and try to analyze the problems in your life with relatives and loved ones and ask what the teaching lesson might be and work on understanding others and walking in their footsteps, loving all. Because the long road to waking up back home is not the fun one, redoing it with your family over and over until you gain the skill, for example, is not fun.

This universe school is about getting past inequality, wars, harm, controlling others, its about live and let live and unconditional love, and even being a gift to others.

If your implying that everything within existstance can be classified as "physical" in some relative sense, regardless of whether we have perceptual access to it or not, then yes I can agree with you!

Very soon we will find out the side of quantum science that can prove, physically, how everything interacts via energy...

BUT, if your saying that nothing exists outside of the physicality in our universe then you have only just begun your path to realization my friend

Physical Universe = Maybe 5% of the total MAYBE (May even be UNCLASSIFIABLE)

What I want to know is how you feel so confident in your words? I feel that any mentally/psychically healthy person would instinctually feel that there is certainly more to everything than what we experience physically.

Unless, of course, your some form of Organic Portal...in which case it would make perfect sense why you would feel nothing in that area lol

A person claiming nothing beyond physicality...That's like an Ant saying "There are no clouds on earth, I know, or I would have seen one!"

To his knowledge there is nothing more because he hasn't yet developed the proper eyes for seeing, he can claim they don't exist because he hasn't evolved to that point of recognition yet, but it doesn't mean it isn't there

Peace/Love/Unity

I disagree that there appears not to be a non-physical reality. Quantum psychology appears to be an interesting read, but I find that it seems to be an attempt to use quantum mechanics to replace the metaphysical. Duality does not distress me. I have no reason to doubt my soul exists in both physical and non-physical form. When science can prove it doesn't, then, I will reassess my worldview developed through society, culture, and my own experiences.

Have I attempted to use the English Prime correctly?

heh, I'm personally the one to generally speak of non-duality in the sense of consciousness...I generally feel that taking either side of a 'duality' to their extreme lends you to very similar conclusions...generally I stress mind/consciousness, and here I decided to write in terms of physicality, the apparently 'other end of the spectrum.' The results are not so much different, and I actually think both viewpoints are important to develop. Either way of looking at it can be useful, depending on what your purposes are.

And yes, I also agree with you all about phrasing being relative and subjective. Every word choice I make assumes a certain viewpoint, and then you will have your own viewpoint upon reading it that may or may not be consistent with mine. Words are pointers, but shouldn't be taken as absolute. As I have gotten more and more into philosophy and linguistics, language has seen more and more to me to be a 'failure.' It has some practical uses, but in terms of actually describing things you have a few words to describe an incredibly broad range of phenomena, and that leaves the definition of each word quite vague and therefore open to misunderstanding.

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
I disagree that there appears not to be a non-physical reality. Quantum psychology appears to be an interesting read, but I find that it seems to be an attempt to use quantum mechanics to replace the metaphysical. Duality does not distress me. I have no reason to doubt my soul exists in both physical and non-physical form. When science can prove it doesn't, then, I will reassess my worldview developed through society, culture, and my own experiences.

Have I attempted to use the English Prime correctly?

English Prime...nice! It really is a good idea, in terms of accuracy...

Seems to me that this is simply another case of someone trying to make a point based on semantics.

You're arguing the word, not the topic. And even in that you refuse to define the word.

Nothing but playing semantics to try and feel intelligent.

reply to post by TheJourney


congratulations OP, on joining that select group of individuals
who made history during the 20th century

as some of the greatest mass murderers ever known

Mao, Stalin, and Pol pot just to give a sample

what you are preaching [and do not even bother denying it]
is nothing but a triple refried and doubly made over rehash
of dialectical materialism

best known as "everything is merely matter in motion"

which hydra like keeps rearing a new ugly head,
with a new brand label,
every time the older and failed one gets cut off

nowadays its calling itself The Neuroscientific View of Life
which along with Genetic Pre-determinism

may very well be the pseudo-philosophical basis for the major acts of mass murder and genocide to be perpetrated during the 21st century

for those interested in what the op is preaching/selling, and the effects it's already having behind the scenes:

Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died Tom Wolfe
From neuroscience to Nietzsche. A sobering look at how man may perceive himself in the future, particularly as ideas about genetic predeterminism takes the place of dying Darwinism. . www.orthodoxytoday.org...

The neuroscientific view of life

This, the neuroscientific view of life, has become the strategic high ground in the academic world, and the battle for it has already spread well beyond the scientific disciplines and, for that matter, out into the general public. Both liberals and conservatives without a scientific bone in their bodies are busy trying to seize the terrain. The gay rights movement, for example, has fastened onto a study published in July of 1993 by the highly respected Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health, announcing the discovery of "the gay gene." Obviously, if homosexuality is a genetically determined trait, like left–handedness or hazel eyes, then laws and sanctions against it are attempts to legislate against Nature. Conservatives, meantime, have fastened upon studies indicating that men's and women's brains are wired so differently, thanks to the long haul of evolution, that feminist attempts to open up traditionally male roles to women are the same thing: a doomed violation of Nature.

Wilson himself has wound up in deep water on this score; or cold water, if one need edit. In his personal life Wilson is a conventional liberal, PC, as the saying goes—he is, after all, a member of the Harvard faculty—concerned about environmental issues and all the usual things. But he has said that "forcing similar role identities" on both men and women "flies in the face of thousands of years in which mammals demonstrated a strong tendency for sexual division of labor. Since this division of labor is persistent from hunter–gatherer through agricultural and industrial societies, it suggests a genetic origin. We do not know when this trait evolved in human evolution or how resistant it is to the continuing and justified pressures for human rights."

"Resistant" was Darwin II, the neuroscientist, speaking. "Justified" was the PC Harvard liberal. He was not PC or liberal enough. Feminist protesters invaded a conference where Wilson was appearing, dumped a pitcher of ice water, cubes and all, over his head, and began chanting, "You're all wet! You're all wet!" The most prominent feminist in America, Gloria Steinem, went on television and, in an interview with John Stossel of ABC, insisted that studies of genetic differences between male and female nervous systems should cease forthwith.

But that turned out to be mild stuff in the current political panic over neuroscience. In February of 1992, Frederick K. Goodwin, a renowned psychiatrist, head of the federal Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, and a certified yokel in the field of public relations, made the mistake of describing, at a public meeting in Washington, the National Institute of Mental Health's ten–year–old Violence Initiative. This was an experimental program whose hypothesis was that, as among monkeys in the jungle—Goodwin was noted for his monkey studies—much of the criminal mayhem in the United States was caused by a relatively few young males who were genetically predisposed to it; who were hardwired for violent crime, in short. Out in the jungle, among mankind's closest animal relatives, the chimpanzees, it seemed that a handful of genetically twisted young males were the ones who committed practically all of the wanton murders of other males and the physical abuse of females. What if the same were true among human beings? What if, in any given community, it turned out to be a handful of young males with toxic DNA who were pushing statistics for violent crime up to such high levels? The Violence Initiative envisioned identifying these individuals in childhood, somehow, some way, someday, and treating them therapeutically with drugs. The notion that crime–ridden urban America was a "jungle," said Goodwin, was perhaps more than just a tired old metaphor.

That did it. That may have been the stupidest single word uttered by an American public official in the year 1992. The outcry was immediate. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative John Dingell of Michigan (who, it became obvious later, suffered from hydrophobia when it came to science projects) not only condemned Goodwin's remarks as racist but also delivered their scientific verdict: Research among primates "is a preposterous basis" for analyzing anything as complex as "the crime and violence that plagues our country today." (This came as surprising news to NASA scientists who had first trained and sent a chimpanzee called Ham up on top of a Redstone rocket into suborbital space flight and then trained and sent another one, called Enos, which is Greek for "man," up on an Atlas rocket and around the earth in orbital space flight and had thereby accurately and completely predicted the physical, psychological, and task–motor responses of the human astronauts, Alan Shepard and John Glenn, who repeated the chimpanzees' flights and tasks months later.) The Violence Initiative was compared to Nazi eugenic proposals for the extermination of undesirables. Dingell's Michigan colleague, Representative John Conyers, then chairman of the Government Operations Committee and senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, demanded Goodwin's resignation—and got it two days later, whereupon the government, with the Department of Health and Human Services now doing the talking, denied that the Violence Initiative had ever existed. It disappeared down the memory hole, to use Orwell's term.


***

Anyone with a child in school knows the signs all too well. I have children in school, and I am intrigued by the faith parents now invest—the craze began about 1990—in psychologists who diagnose their children as suffering from a defect known as attention deficit disorder, or ADD. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether this "disorder" is an actual, physical, neurological condition or not, but neither does anybody else in this early stage of neuroscience. The symptoms of this supposed malady are always the same. The child, or, rather, the boy—forty–nine out of fifty cases are boys—fidgets around in school, slides off his chair, doesn't pay attention, distracts his classmates during class, and performs poorly. In an earlier era he would have been pressured to pay attention, work harder, show some self–discipline. To parents caught up in the new intellectual climate of the 1990s, that approach seems cruel, because my little boy's problem is...he's wired wrong! The poor little tyke —the fix has been in since birth! Invariably the parents complain, "All he wants to do is sit in front of the television set and watch cartoons and play Sega Genesis." For how long? "How long? For hours at a time." Hours at a time; as even any young neuroscientist will tell you, that boy may have a problem, but it is not an attention deficit.

Nevertheless, all across America we have the spectacle of an entire generation of little boys, by the tens of thousands, being dosed up on ADD's magic bullet of choice, Ritalin, the CIBA–Geneva Corporation's brand name for the stimulant methylphenidate. I first encountered Ritalin in 1966 when I was in San Francisco doing research for a book on the psychedelic or hippie movement. A certain species of the genus hippie was known as the Speed Freak, and a certain strain of Speed Freak was known as the Ritalin Head. The Ritalin Heads loved Ritalin. You'd see them in the throes of absolute Ritalin raptures...Not a wiggle, not a peep...They would sit engrossed in anything at all...a manhole cover, their own palm wrinkles...indefinitely...through shoulda–been mealtime after mealtime...through raging insomnias...Pure methyl–phenidate nirvana...From 1990 to 1995, CIBA–Geneva's sales of Ritalin rose 600 percent; and not because of the appetites of subsets of the species Speed Freak in San Francisco, either. It was because an entire generation of American boys, from the best private schools of the Northeast to the worst sludge–trap public schools of Los Angeles and San Diego, was now strung out on methylphenidate, diligently doled out to them every day by their connection, the school nurse. America is a wonderful country! I mean it! No honest writer would challenge that statement! The human comedy never runs out of material! It never lets you down!
***
Thereupon, in the year 2006 or 2026, some new Nietzsche will step forward to announce: "The self is dead"—except that being prone to the poetic, like Nietzsche I, he will probably say: "The soul is dead." He will say that he is merely bringing the news, the news of the greatest event of the millennium: "The soul, that last refuge of values, is dead, because educated people no longer believe it exists." Unless the assurances of the Wilsons and the Dennetts and the Dawkinses also start rippling out, the lurid carnival that will ensue may make the phrase "the total eclipse of all values" seem tame.
The two most fascinating riddles of the 21st century

If I were a college student today, I don't think I could resist going into neuroscience. Here we have the two most fascinating riddles of the twenty–first century: the riddle of the human mind and the riddle of what happens to the human mind when it comes to know itself absolutely. In any case, we live in an age in which it is impossible and pointless to avert your eyes from the truth.

Ironically, said Nietzsche, this unflinching eye for truth, this zest for skepticism, is the legacy of Christianity (for complicated reasons that needn't detain us here). Then he added one final and perhaps ultimate piece of irony in a fragmentary passage in a notebook shortly before he lost his mind (to the late–nineteenth–century's great venereal scourge, syphilis). He predicted that eventually modern science would turn its juggernaut of skepticism upon itself, question the validity of its own foundations, tear them apart, and self–destruct.

riddle me this:
if everything is merely matter in motion, and all of Humankinds works merely the inevitable genetically predetermined outcome of chemicals reacting in the brain;then what validity does your thread have?

it's just some random brain fart after all,
produced by an automaton going through the motions

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Seems to me that this is simply another case of someone trying to make a point based on semantics.

You're arguing the word, not the topic. And even in that you refuse to define the word.

Nothing but playing semantics to try and feel intelligent.

You are arguing against semantics, not even the word nor the topic. If semantics makes you feel unintelligent, by all means, don't participate.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
may very well be the pseudo-philosophical basis for the major acts of mass murder and genocide to be perpetrated during the 21st century

If this sensationalist nonsense helps you sleep better at night, so you can enjoy your dreams in peace, then by all means, paint as many people as you can with your genocidal dictator brush. If I was daft enough, I could do the same to you and Hitler, countless Inquisitors, terrorists, Joseph Coney, Idi Amin, boy-touching preachers etc etc etc but that would be absurd.

You're not the first one to draw people under your banners by attempting to use fear tactics.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Seems to me that this is simply another case of someone trying to make a point based on semantics.

You're arguing the word, not the topic. And even in that you refuse to define the word.

Nothing but playing semantics to try and feel intelligent.

You are arguing against semantics, not even the word nor the topic. If semantics makes you feel unintelligent, by all means, don't participate.

Intelligence based on semantics. Classic.

In case you missed it, I AM participating, by stating my opinion that this is nothing more than semantics. If that makes you feel attacked, feel free to not participate.

Seriously, what happened to this site?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Seriously, what happened to this site?

It's been subverted, biatch.

Also, another thing I am trying to accomplish with this thread is a direct challenge to a spiritual/materialistic, or spiritual/physical, duality. Yet rather than just come out and try to reconcile them, I instead claim one extreme, in a very in-your-face way, and then as I guide you through the logical process I take you into both extremes of the duality, but linguistically claiming to support one end of the spectrum. I could just as easily do the same of the other end, where physical reality is only a projection of a non-physical consciousness, or something like that, taking you through the same essential thought process, only using some different words and having a different starting point.

Two opposing schools of non-duality is nonsensical, and incomplete and misunderstood non-duality.

If you say everything is mind, great. That does not undermine physical reality, for physical reality is mind.

If you say everything is physical, great. That does not undermine mind, for mind is physical.

It all depends on how you choose to phrase it. Your phrasing determines your conceptualization of it, but doesn't really make a difference on it...if you say all is mind, or all is physical, that doesn't undermine the other...it simply demonstrates that the 'other' is actually the same as your preferred conceptualization

What I am saying in this post may, itself, be misunderstood, due to the difficulty, or perhaps impossibility, of phrasing true non-duality

Originally posted by TheJourney

Two opposing schools of non-duality is nonsensical, and incomplete and misunderstood non-duality.

/shrug

“Unity can only be manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two.”

-The Buddha

Originally posted by TheJourney
Two opposing schools of non-duality is nonsensical, and incomplete and misunderstood non-duality.

If you say everything is mind, great. That does not undermine physical reality, for physical reality is mind.

If you say everything is physical, great. That does not undermine mind, for mind is physical.

It all depends on how you choose to phrase it. Your phrasing determines your conceptualization of it, but doesn't really make a difference on it...if you say all is mind, or all is physical, that doesn't undermine the other...it simply demonstrates that the 'other' is actually the same as your preferred conceptualization

What I am saying in this post may, itself, be misunderstood, due to the difficulty, or perhaps impossibility, of phrasing true non-duality

edit on 30-7-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

I'm in agreement here. They simply cannot exist without the other. They cannot even be conceived without the other. What's the point in abstracting something that doesn't need to be abstracted?

reply to post by TheJourney


We know that there is a microscopic universe that makes up everything in the physical world that we can see with the naked eye. When I think of the billions of galaxies, I imagine them to be just another microscopic universe that makes up something physical in a larger universe. Maybe the galaxies are cells, just like the cells that make us. Maybe they are white cells rushing off to heal a huge wound. Just as the mitochondria is located on the outside of a nucleus, WE are located on the fringe of our galaxy, so maybe WE are the energy that powers our cell (galaxy). I dunno, but I can buy this a lot easier than a spirit world, or that we are the main attraction in this realm.

Not claiming to be right or wrong. Just saying that's how I imagine it. Don't be hatin' !

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by TheJourney

 

We know that there is a microscopic universe that makes up everything in the physical world that we can see with the naked eye. When I think of the billions of galaxies, I imagine them to be just another microscopic universe that makes up something physical in a larger universe. Maybe the galaxies are cells, just like the cells that make us. Maybe they are white cells rushing off to heal a huge wound. Just as the mitochondria is located on the outside of a nucleus, WE are located on the fringe of our galaxy, so maybe WE are the energy that powers our cell (galaxy). I dunno, but I can buy this a lot easier than a spirit world, or that we are the main attraction in this realm.

Not claiming to be right or wrong. Just saying that's how I imagine it. Don't be hatin' !

Maybe every scale of reality is equivalent to every other scale of reality, relative to some other scale.(woah...said scale of reality a lot there, hope you didn't lose me )

So an atom is a universe, galaxy, solar system, star, planet, living being, cell and molecule, relative to various scales of reality...and everything else is, also, all of those things, from a certain perspective...

I like to think of myself as a nucleus...or a star...

Originally posted by TheJourney

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by TheJourney

 

We know that there is a microscopic universe that makes up everything in the physical world that we can see with the naked eye. When I think of the billions of galaxies, I imagine them to be just another microscopic universe that makes up something physical in a larger universe. Maybe the galaxies are cells, just like the cells that make us. Maybe they are white cells rushing off to heal a huge wound. Just as the mitochondria is located on the outside of a nucleus, WE are located on the fringe of our galaxy, so maybe WE are the energy that powers our cell (galaxy). I dunno, but I can buy this a lot easier than a spirit world, or that we are the main attraction in this realm.

Not claiming to be right or wrong. Just saying that's how I imagine it. Don't be hatin' !

Maybe every scale of reality is equivalent to every other scale of reality, relative to some other scale.(woah...said scale of reality a lot there, hope you didn't lose me

)

So an atom is a universe, galaxy, solar system, star, planet, living being, cell and molecule, relative to various scales of reality...and everything else is, also, all of those things, from a certain perspective...

I like to think of myself as a nucleus...or a star...

And I like to think of myself as a gas giant. Oh wait!