Niether Body nor Spirit

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

By "seeing" I think you mean imagining. The imagination is very powerful indeed. I can fly in my imagination.

What, exactly, is the difference between real and imaginary? Do you think anything in your life is real? No, you're imagining it all!

reply to post by HarryTZ

What, exactly, is the difference between real and imaginary? Do you think anything in your life is real? No, you're imagining it all!

I shouldn't have to explain this:

real |ˈrē(ə)l|
adjective
1 actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: Julius Caesar was a real person | a story drawing on real events | her many illnesses, real and imaginary.
• used to emphasize the significance or seriousness of a situation or circumstance: there is a real danger of civil war | the competitive threat from overseas is very real.
• Philosophy relating to something as it is, not merely as it may be described or distinguished.
2 (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine: the earring was presumably real gold.
• true or actual: his real name is James | this isn't my real reason for coming.
• [ attrib. ] (of a person or thing) rightly so called; proper: he's my idea of a real man | Jamie is my only real friend.
3 [ attrib. ] informal complete; utter (used for emphasis): the tour turned out to be a real disaster.
4 [ attrib. ] adjusted for changes in the value of money; assessed by purchasing power: real incomes had fallen by 30 percent | an increase in real terms of 11.6 percent.
5 Law of fixed property (i.e., land and buildings), as distinct from personal property: he lost nearly all of his real holdings.
6 Mathematics (of a number or quantity) having no imaginary part. See imaginary.
7 Optics (of an image) of a kind in which the light that forms it actually passes through it; not virtual.
adverb [ as submodifier ] informal
really; very: my head hurts real bad.
PHRASES
for real informal used to assert that something is genuine or is actually the case: I'm not playing games—this is for real! • used in questions to express surprise or to question the truth or seriousness of what one has seen or heard: are these guys for real?
get real! informal used to convey that an idea or statement is foolish or overly idealistic: You want teens to have committed sexual relationships? Get real!
real live humorous used to emphasize the existence of something, esp. if it is surprising or unusual: a real live detective had been at the factory.
real money informal money in a large or significant amount.
the real thing informal a thing that is absolutely genuine or authentic: you've never been in love before, so how can you be sure this is the real thing?
DERIVATIVES
realness noun
ORIGIN late Middle English (as a legal term meaning ‘relating to things, esp. real property’): from Anglo-Norman French, from late Latin realis, from Latin res ‘thing.’
real 2 |rāˈäl|
noun ( pl. reals or reis |rāSH, rās| )
the basic monetary unit of Brazil since 1994, equal to 100 centavos.
• ( pl. reales |rāˈäles| or reals ) a former coin and monetary unit of various Spanish-speaking countries.
ORIGIN Portuguese and Spanish, literally ‘royal’ (adjective used as a noun).

imaginary |iˈmajəˌnerē|
adjective
1 existing only in the imagination: Chris had imaginary conversations with her.
2 Mathematics (of a number or quantity) expressed in terms of the square root of a negative number (usually the square root of −1, represented by i or j). See also complex.
DERIVATIVES
imaginarily |iˌmajəˈne(ə)rəlē|adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin imaginarius, from imago, imagin- ‘image.’
usage: Imaginary means ‘product of the imagination, unreal.’ Imaginative means ‘showing imagination, original.’ Science fiction, for example, deals with imaginary people, places, and events; how imaginative it is depends on the writer's ability.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


There's two types of dreams. Dreams that occur with the eyes closed, and dreams that occur with eyes open. Either way, you don't know that you're dreaming. Both are just mirages created by neural processes in the brain.

If there is some particular concept you don't understand just ask me specifically, so I can further describe it for you.

reply to post by HarryTZ

There's two types of dreams. Dreams that occur with the eyes closed, and dreams that occur with eyes open. Either way, you don't know that you're dreaming. Both are just mirages created by neural processes in the brain.

Is the brain a mirage of the brain? Are neural processes the result of neural processes?

1-I never said the spirit was within the body. Therefore, it is not an error on my part. 2-Nonetheless, I'm interested in how you've arrived at your conclusion?

1- perhaps you'd prefer if I said the language you used implied ?

-—a soul, a spirit, a consciousness, an ego, some true nature or other, a ghost in a shell, an immortal monad completely distinct from that which contains it—

2-direct experience.
recent events being chronicled in my intro*


regarding the nihilism quibble:
perhaps you'd prefer the term reductionist-materialist ?
or provide one yourself?
[as it seems to be a work in progress]

*and to avoid future confusion and possible misunderstanding, [judging by the more curt tone in the 2nd half of your reply] i should point out that I have engaged you before in dialog [ATSWise] in a "past life".

and that I am now quite "Insane" as well

but carry on whilst I F&S this so far interesting thread
hopefully others, MySelf included, will continue to add to it

perhaps even explore your transcendental leanings re quests for meaning
but must now see to the needs of the flesh,


back in a while...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


What is a brain but a collection of matter? And what is matter but dense clumps of the one energy? And what is that energy but nothing itself, the infinite potential for nothingness to manifest as nothingness?

reply to post by TheMagus

1- perhaps you'd prefer if I said the language you used implied ?

Maybe read again.

2-direct experience.
recent events being chronicled in my intro*

regarding the nihilism quibble:
perhaps you'd prefer the term reductionist-materialist ?
or provide one yourself?
[as it seems to be a work in progress]

Call me what you wish. That is your method.

*and to avoid future confusion and possible misunderstanding, [judging by the more curt tone in the 2nd half of your reply] i should point out that I have engaged you before in dialog [ATSWise] in a "past life".

and that I am now quite "Insane" as well

It doesn't matter if we've engaged or not, you and everyone else is l'etranger to me.

reply to post by HarryTZ

What is a brain but a collection of matter? And what is matter but dense clumps of the one energy? And what is that energy but nothing itself, the infinite potential for nothingness to manifest as nothingness?

Then be nothing. Nothings cannot type words.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is a brain but a collection of matter? And what is matter but dense clumps of the one energy? And what is that energy but nothing itself, the infinite potential for nothingness to manifest as nothingness?

Then be nothing. Nothings cannot type words.

There is not nothing... and something. Words are nothing, too. And so is typing.

May I ask... what have you against being a nothing, alone, with no story? It's what you are whether you realize it or not.

reply to post by HarryTZ

May I ask... what have you against being a nothing, alone, with no story? It's what you are whether you realize it or not.

It is merely what you call me. I don't respect that conclusion simply because your existence, your discourse and your actions refute everything you say. The only nothing I see is the value of your outlook, which amounts to the regurgitation of another's ideas (Osho?). You do great disservice to your teachers if you forever remain a student.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Thank you for expressing something I've never been able to find the words for. It comes perilously close to demeaning my own approaches in such matters, but even so, you make a lot of sense. Perhaps I need to reevaluate how I define the ideologies behind my own beliefs. Thank you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I appreciate that Mr. Infinity.

I realize my essays are demeaning, but its all part of the show. It's designed to offend, but a friend is never offended. I write how I would to my friends.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I realize my essays are demeaning, but its all part of the show. It's designed to offend,

I failed to be offended and I did not feel that any personally cherished belief was being demeaned. Does that place me outside of your target audience?

I can well imagine that people who hold untenable positions such as distinct recognizable spirit ego personality existing apart from the body may want to argue against you, but they seem to be the ones arguing from a position of the authority of what's becoming a neo-orthodoxy, rather than from observation and reason.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

I wonder if they have discovered this “spirit” themselves, if they have arisen to this conclusion by utilizing the power of their very own human being, their thought, their reason, their experience as only they have lived it, because it sounds all too familiar to what we’ve always been promised by the dusty doctrines of death and self-repudiation, the ready-made second-hand thoughts of others before us, religious ideas.

It may be that those who have discovered and experienced spirit for themselves also realise that such direct perception is deeply personal and intimate and not meant for public display or self-promotion. It is something which needs to be digested within, not shouted from the rooftops.

No-one else can offer you their own experience of the spiritual in a way which eliminates all doubt in your own mind. Only you may experience this for yourself, within yourself. All the books and teachings merely point the way.

reply to post by pthena

I failed to be offended and I did not feel that any personally cherished belief was being demeaned. Does that place me outside of your target audience?

Not at all. I just assume no one ever agrees with me. Hopefully, at least, you were able to get some enjoyment out of it.

reply to post by mysticnoon

No-one else can offer you their own experience of the spiritual in a way which eliminates all doubt in your own mind. Only you may experience this for yourself, within yourself. All the books and teachings merely point the way.

Every promoter of the spirit tells me such. Only I can experience it for myself. No one can use their words and explain it to me. I have experienced enough "spirituality" in my life to know what the spirit is—or is not.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

This may very well not mean what people generally think that it does, those people who like to take verses out of context for proof-text theology.
Verse 18 talks about the so-called antichrist that drew members away from the congregation.
Verse 19 says if they were living by God's leading, they would have remained.
The same word is used in 17 and 19, to "abide", so it may not necessarily be talking about an afterlife of living forever. If it meant that, I think John would have just said so.
Too many people, I think, ignore, or don't even want to grasp, the actual rhetoric that the writers of the New Testament used, but just want to grasp onto bits and get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling that they own something precious that gives them 'safe passage' into the blessed land. This isn't what was being discussed, but rather the "correct" conduct of members of the church (not being led astray by preachers with feel-good religion).

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I think you hit that particular approach spot-on. More than once I've nearly come to blows with my friends only to realize they were right and I was simply hostile to the idea of reevaluation. Rather Republican of me.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
There comes a time in everyone’s life when they must define themselves, to sell their cloak and buy a sword, to face their true judge and finally make the choice to become what they are.

You cannot become what you are!

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Sure thing death does not exist, but is not it contradicting your thoughts about spirits you had previously? It's the way I saw it after reading your post.