+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial (/showthread.php?tid=9045)
Pages:
1
2
Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
Because it is all in the UV light spectrum. Without this sight, this ability to see this light, we are convinced that this light is beyond us. Little of it is such. In fact, if only we used our instrumentation in such a way, it would all be visible. That is why I do not consider the metaphysical something truly paranormal. To me it is a fringe science that is not yet discovered. This is not truly an illusion but simply a heavily abstracted reality.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - AnthroHeart - 04-27-2014
Can you see a thought-form with instrumentation? Is it exactly like you picture it?
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Ashim - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 05:33 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: Can you see a thought-form with instrumentation? Is it exactly like you picture it?
You must enter the court of the pine cone.
Nudge, wink, hint, etc.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 05:33 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: Can you see a thought-form with instrumentation? Is it exactly like you picture it?
This can only be done if the thought-form were made in such a way that material light would be its form. Few there are of this density capable of producing such a thought.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Rhayader - 04-27-2014
Maybe my mind just works differently, but often I think you just state the obvious...
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Ashim - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 05:51 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: Maybe my mind just works differently, but often I think you just state the obvious...
Few there are of this density that can see the obvious.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - anagogy - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 05:27 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Because it is all in the UV light spectrum. Without this sight, this ability to see this light, we are convinced that this light is beyond us. Little of it is such. In fact, if only we used our instrumentation in such a way, it would all be visible. That is why I do not consider the metaphysical something truly paranormal. To me it is a fringe science that is not yet discovered. This is not truly an illusion but simply a heavily abstracted reality.
I have a slightly different understanding.
The upper frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum are still very much space/time, or physical, phenomena in my opinion. There is a time/space component of what we call "electromagnetism" which is, in fact, "immaterial" though. Anything perceivable via the physical senses, or physical instrumentation, is physical. The metaphysical part of things is the non-local "mind" aspect, which is not only intangible, and nonphysical, but not accurately quantifiable by any physical means. However, physical manifestations reflect this aspect to varying degrees, depending on where or how the energy is being focused.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Unbound - 04-27-2014
Immanuel, have you ever played a guitar or a drum or other instrument?
The sound that is created from such an instrument is arising out of a causal pattern that begins in the Creator. The very energy of the Creator as it is express through the individuated form is the source of the power which causes the vibration which causes the sound. However, the actual experience of the sound, the sound waves and its frequency are not actually the actual source nor the actual force which has given rise to the experience. The sound is produced by processes which are not only invisible, but because they stem from our own multi-dimensional nature the sound is actually only the effect or perception of something which does not actually have any dimensions.
To put it another way, the "light" we see and work with metaphysically is, in my opinion, not actually the force we work with but is just the interpretation our visual minds are most capable of interacting with. As you say with development and increased use and utilization of our physical instruments we can expand this visual and perceive greater light and realities, however, all of those experiences and perceptions are an "end-product" of experience and are privy to our "filtering".
That being said, I believe the universe itself is actually neither material nor immaterial. It is a suspension of information within information. We are capable of interacting with it in a way that we may consciously, physically perceive and interact with some parts while not doing so as directly with others. This, of course, really ties in to a mass confusion necessarily of what "physical" and "non-physical" means as people seem to have different interpretations of this concept.
For me, the whole argument appears to be completely redundant. All material is immaterial and can be made immaterial, and all that is immaterial can be made material. I see this as one of the great secrets of Alchemy is the knowledge of the transmutation of energy between is material and immaterial forms, from spirit to matter and back. Just some of my thoughts anyways.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
What material makes the soul, Tanner?
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - manniz - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 05:27 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Because it is all in the UV light spectrum. Without this sight, this ability to see this light, we are convinced that this light is beyond us. Little of it is such. In fact, if only we used our instrumentation in such a way, it would all be visible. That is why I do not consider the metaphysical something truly paranormal. To me it is a fringe science that is not yet discovered. This is not truly an illusion but simply a heavily abstracted reality.
A1, you do not wanna get into the science behind electro-magnetic spectrum. What instrumentation would you suggest to see more in the UV light spectrum? As in, which frequencies that we have not yet accessed. If not frequencies, what else?
Rather then bugging you, I would say - It is not within our spectrum, but a whole different spectrum. Material is truly an illusion (with respect to consciousness), though there are many abstracted realities within it.
Would give you 5 pennies if you reply. 10 pennies for smiling.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Unbound - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 09:42 PM)Adonai One Wrote: What material makes the soul, Tanner?
The soul is insubstantial in that it is quintessential to all things and so without defining characteristic except for the fact of existence. That being said, its substance could perhaps be said to be its own existence. What is perhaps more pertinent in my own mind is what establishes the existence of the soul. That, I admit, is a great mystery.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
The soul is of the eternal, is it not? Does it not have origins in what would be considered light?
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - zenmaster - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 05:27 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Because it is all in the UV light spectrum. Without this sight, this ability to see this light, we are convinced that this light is beyond us. Little of it is such. In fact, if only we used our instrumentation in such a way, it would all be visible. That is why I do not consider the metaphysical something truly paranormal. To me it is a fringe science that is not yet discovered. This is not truly an illusion but simply a heavily abstracted reality.Ultraviolet light is just a 1D frequency range of a vibrating photon, based in space/time, or "physical". "Metaphysical" is that which is of time/space, which was known before mentioned by Ra. Time/space, can be considered as Larson's "cosmic sector" and of course it's not visible, nor can it be made visible, because it's non-local. Time/space only shares a connection with space/time via mind which serves as a bridge between both realms. The brain is like a "device driver" for mind.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Unbound - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 10:49 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The soul is of the eternal, is it not? Does it not have origins in what would be considered light?
Eternity is not of time/space or space/time which is what I consider the phenomenon of visual light to be. Nor do I consider it to be the same as the metaphysical concept of light but rather is something which exists both with and without it. Eternity is the dwelling-place of the One. The soul is the One in every individuation. Light is created by the soul, not the other way around, in my mind.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 10:56 PM)zenmaster Wrote:Was the ideal of time/space and space/time as two separate concepts, and not entirely united concept complexes, denoted explicitly in the Law of One material?(04-27-2014, 05:27 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Because it is all in the UV light spectrum. Without this sight, this ability to see this light, we are convinced that this light is beyond us. Little of it is such. In fact, if only we used our instrumentation in such a way, it would all be visible. That is why I do not consider the metaphysical something truly paranormal. To me it is a fringe science that is not yet discovered. This is not truly an illusion but simply a heavily abstracted reality.Ultraviolet light is just a 1D frequency range of a vibrating photon, based in space/time, or "physical". "Metaphysical" is that which is of time/space, which was known before mentioned by Ra. Time/space, can be considered as Larson's "cosmic sector" and of course it's not visible, nor can it be made visible, because it's non-local. Time/space only shares a connection with space/time via mind which serves as a bridge between both realms. The brain is like a "device driver" for mind.
(04-27-2014, 11:00 PM)Tanner Wrote:(04-27-2014, 10:49 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The soul is of the eternal, is it not? Does it not have origins in what would be considered light?
Eternity is not of time/space or space/time which is what I consider the phenomenon of visual light to be. Nor do I consider it to be the same as the metaphysical concept of light but rather is something which exists both with and without it. Eternity is the dwelling-place of the One. The soul is the One in every individuation. Light is created by the soul, not the other way around, in my mind.
Light is but a construct without any connection to the eternal to you?
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - manniz - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 10:56 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Ultraviolet light is just a 1D frequency range of a vibrating photon, based in space/time, or "physical". "Metaphysical" is that which is of time/space, which was known before mentioned by Ra. Time/space, can be considered as Larson's "cosmic sector" and of course it's not visible, nor can it be made visible, because it's non-local. Time/space only shares a connection with space/time via mind which serves as a bridge between both realms. The brain is like a "device driver" for mind.
I was just thinking about how to lay it out technically, and Zen did a better job. Larson could be a good reading.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
Larson is but one interpretation of the cosmic inpourings that constitute our creation. I find myself pressed to consider this a foundation to a discussion.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Fang - 04-27-2014
Material=of substance
Light (according to the Ra material)= building block of matter, space/time phenomena
Light is still space/time, no matter the frequency lol bees don't have access to some metaphysical realm we don't because they can see UV. You are talking about phenomena (space/time) as if it were time/space biz and then saying it's like space/time thus not immaterial, lawl.
Our instrumentation can pick up the UV spectrum, it's the human eye (with possible exceptions of those with aphakia) that cannot perceive the higher frequencies.
Anyway the "metaphysical", like you say, is not "paranormal" as it is allowed by and is a product of nature. Everything is a product of nature, there is nothing "paranormal" or "supernatural". "Paranormal" indicates a violation of a model of understanding of nature.
Edit:added a sentence
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Unbound - 04-27-2014
The word, or "vibratory sound complex" called light is a creation of Love, of intelligent energy and is the manifestation of this energy and love. Eternity is, to me, a property of the One which is omniscient and is occurring at or during the stage of the first distortion, prior to the third distortion which is light, to use the terms of Ra.
Quote:The vibration or density of love or understanding is not a term used in the same sense as the second distortion, Love; the distortion Love being the great activator and primal co-Creator of various creations using intelligent infinity; the vibration love being that density in which those who have learned to do an activity called “loving” without significant distortion, then seek the ways of light or wisdom. Thus in vibratory sense love comes into light in the sense of the activity of unity in its free will. Love uses light and has the power to direct light in its distortions. Thus vibratory complexes recapitulate in reverse the creation in its unity, thus showing the rhythm or flow of the great heartbeat, if you will use this analogy.
That being said, light is also limitless which can be taken, in my view, as the completely viewed progression from the first to the third distortion and onwards with each encompassing the next like a set of Matryoshka dolls. Eternity is not something which is accessed from within the densities but is the distinct pleasure of those entities crossing the threshold of the 7th, entering the 9th which is Eternity to me, and from there choosing the next octave to explore. The 8th is the Opening of the Octave, so to me one must use the 7th density in order to enter in to any octave from Eternity. Those choosing to take on the experiences of the next octave after this one will do so by re-entering from Eternity through the 7/8 Gateway within which is nestled the 9th. This probably doesn't make much sense because I haven't developed the language for expressing these concepts so I am somewhat grasping at concept straws to attempt to convey what I actually mean but I hope you can somewhat see past my cumbersome descriptions.
It is not that light is not without a connection to the eternal, it does indeed exist as part of Eternity but Light itself is not the "substance" of Eternity itself but is, forever, the substance of the EXPERIENCE of Eternity. I suppose I am making the distinction between the observer and the observed, even if ultimately one singular system.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Fang - 04-27-2014
Ra is but one interpretation of the cosmic inpourings that constitute our creation. I find myself pressed to consider this a foundation to a discussion.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
If the eternal is properly experience, then would not it be entirely singular figuratively and literally?
(04-27-2014, 11:29 PM)Fang Wrote: Ra is but one interpretation of the cosmic inpourings that constitute our creation. I find myself pressed to consider this a foundation to a discussion.
It is well to note this. Foundationally this discussion is without true recourse. Empiricism and coherentism have no application here. We are only with an appeal to infinity. Is this well?
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - manniz - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 10:46 PM)Tanner Wrote:(04-27-2014, 09:42 PM)Adonai One Wrote: What material makes the soul, Tanner?
The soul is insubstantial in that it is quintessential to all things and so without defining characteristic except for the fact of existence. That being said, its substance could perhaps be said to be its own existence. What is perhaps more pertinent in my own mind is what establishes the existence of the soul. That, I admit, is a great mystery.
That is truly a mystery. Consciousness is a valid term to describe it, but a query can be asked about technicalities of consciousness. I am fine with the answer that its substance is its own existence.
Many spiritual philosophies have tried to define the soul materially, but I do not think there has been much success. The way my limited thinking wraps around it is -
Did creator divide its immaterial consciousness into individual souls?
Or, did it create material (illusion) to define souls?
Souls exist infinitely, so consciousness (immaterial) seems like a very obvious answer. Wth am I talking about. Zm and tanner already answered this question precisely.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Unbound - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 11:30 PM)Adonai One Wrote: If the eternal is properly experience, then would not it be entirely singular figuratively and literally?
The experience is not eternity, that was my point. I see Eternity as a consciousness entity which has an experience, which it eternally experiences but the experience itself is not the same as the entity which is experiencing it. Experience itself isn't anything but occurrence. Rather, what is more constructive is memory or the use of experience. All experience itself is void and voice, but it is the building of words and worlds from that experience that is the architecture of experience.
Singular as a system, yes, but that does not mean that every part is the same part unless you break it down to the actual singular level at which there is no distinction at all and at which level discussion is entirely moot as there is no experience or lack of experience, simply "being-ness" as some say. This goes beyond Eternity to Infinity which I actually view as quite distinct from the concept of Eternity even though Eternity fits within Infinity and vice-versa I find Infinity to be still transcendent of Eternity.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 11:33 PM)manniz Wrote:(04-27-2014, 10:46 PM)Tanner Wrote:(04-27-2014, 09:42 PM)Adonai One Wrote: What material makes the soul, Tanner?
The soul is insubstantial in that it is quintessential to all things and so without defining characteristic except for the fact of existence. That being said, its substance could perhaps be said to be its own existence. What is perhaps more pertinent in my own mind is what establishes the existence of the soul. That, I admit, is a great mystery.
That is truly a mystery. Consciousness is a valid term to describe it, but a query can be asked about technicalities of consciousness. I am fine with the answer that its substance is its own existence.
Many spiritual philosophies have tried to define the soul materially, but I do not think there has been much success. The way my limited thinking wraps around it is -
Did creator divide its immaterial consciousness into individual souls?
Or, did it create material (illusion) to define souls?
Souls exist infinitely, so consciousness (immaterial) seems like a very obvious answer. Wth am I talking about. Zm and tanner already answered this question precisely.
In my view, the creator simply allowed itself to become what we know as a series of spectral illusions that exist in a singular, indivisible eternal experience that is without a true substance except the substances that are perceived within each consciousness; Each consciousness being inseparable parts of an infinite creation that is without a true will other than an a eternal knowingness that continues to explore its infinite potential in a seemingly linear series of events and loci.
(04-27-2014, 11:36 PM)Tanner Wrote:If eternity is not infinite then why is there simply an eternal knowingness within each self that will attain the state of the creator?(04-27-2014, 11:30 PM)Adonai One Wrote: If the eternal is properly experience, then would not it be entirely singular figuratively and literally?
The experience is not eternity, that was my point. I see Eternity as a consciousness entity which has an experience, which it eternally experiences but the experience itself is not the same as the entity which is experiencing it. Experience itself isn't anything but occurrence. Rather, what is more constructive is memory or the use of experience. All experience itself is void and voice, but it is the building of words and worlds from that experience that is the architecture of experience.
Singular as a system, yes, but that does not mean that every part is the same part unless you break it down to the actual singular level at which there is no distinction at all and at which level discussion is entirely moot as there is no experience or lack of experience, simply "being-ness" as some say. This goes beyond Eternity to Infinity which I actually view as quite distinct from the concept of Eternity even though Eternity fits within Infinity and vice-versa I find Infinity to be still transcendent of Eternity.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - manniz - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 11:25 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Larson is but one interpretation of the cosmic inpourings that constitute our creation. I find myself pressed to consider this a foundation to a discussion.Oh yeah, pretty dang obviously. Larson is impressive to consider it from traditional science's perspective. And actually did lots of hard work and rigorous thinking. That is far more impressive than random statements and feelings about the technicalities of creation.
Kinda like Tesla's decades long work compared to someone thinking that just because they have read Ra or some other material, they can come up with free energy machines. There are actually many people, who tried to do that, without bothering to learn even basic science. Every conspiracy forum has a thread or two with someone's diagrams of how a free energy machine would be like, without much science or even metaphysical ideas behind it. Tesla was amazing though. So much humility for such extensive body of work.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Unbound - 04-27-2014
I didn't say Eternity is not infinite, I say Eternity and Infinity are not the same concepts.
Maybe the best formulation in my mind is to say that Eternity is the Goddess and Infinity the God.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - manniz - 04-27-2014
Good to see you back Fang. I see your posts as representing vibrancy. Mine as random gossip.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - Adonai One - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 11:40 PM)manniz Wrote:Why are you here?(04-27-2014, 11:25 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Larson is but one interpretation of the cosmic inpourings that constitute our creation. I find myself pressed to consider this a foundation to a discussion.Oh yeah, pretty dang obviously. Larson is impressive to consider it from traditional science's perspective. And actually did lots of hard work and rigorous thinking. That is far more impressive than random statements and feelings about the technicalities of creation.
Kinda like Tesla's decades long work compared to someone thinking that just because they have read Ra or some other material, they can come up with free energy machines. There are actually many people, who tried to do that, without bothering to learn even basic science. Every conspiracy forum has a thread or two with someone's diagrams of how a free energy machine would be like, without much science or even metaphysical ideas behind it. Tesla was amazing though. So much humility for such extensive body of work.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - manniz - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 11:38 PM)Adonai One Wrote: In my view, the creator simply allowed itself to become what we know as a series of spectral illusions that exist in a singular, indivisible eternal experience that is without a true substance except the substances that are perceived within each consciousness; Each consciousness being inseparable parts of an infinite creation that is without a true will other than an a eternal knowingness that continues to explore its infinite potential in a seemingly linear series of events and loci.
In four words: Consciousness -> Illusion -> Experience -> Happy
Or simply, something that we are all aware of (basic spiritual knowledge), but we cannot define it much technically, until we are closer. We are free to write essays on it though. I have seen essays describing how to create souls, capture souls etc. Hilarious stuff. Oh, the spiritual over-confidence.
Though, I really did not get what you were saying A1. Sounded exquisite, but I could not combine it much. Other than consciousness - experience - infinity - experience - consciousness.
Not easy to be ZM. I have myself tried and failed.
(04-27-2014, 11:51 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Why are you here?
Yes?
ps: I am a simple human being. Need more than few brilliant words.
RE: Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial - zenmaster - 04-27-2014
(04-27-2014, 11:13 PM)Adonai One Wrote:The ideal? Not sure what you mean. Time and space are inherently the same thing s/t = t/s = 1. When Ra says space/time, they are either referring to the physical sector or the spatial emphasis on that duality. And when they say time/space, it's either clock time or the metaphysical/temporal/cosmic sector.(04-27-2014, 10:56 PM)zenmaster Wrote:Was the ideal of time/space and space/time as two separate concepts, and not entirely united concept complexes, denoted explicitly in the Law of One material?(04-27-2014, 05:27 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Because it is all in the UV light spectrum. Without this sight, this ability to see this light, we are convinced that this light is beyond us. Little of it is such. In fact, if only we used our instrumentation in such a way, it would all be visible. That is why I do not consider the metaphysical something truly paranormal. To me it is a fringe science that is not yet discovered. This is not truly an illusion but simply a heavily abstracted reality.Ultraviolet light is just a 1D frequency range of a vibrating photon, based in space/time, or "physical". "Metaphysical" is that which is of time/space, which was known before mentioned by Ra. Time/space, can be considered as Larson's "cosmic sector" and of course it's not visible, nor can it be made visible, because it's non-local. Time/space only shares a connection with space/time via mind which serves as a bridge between both realms. The brain is like a "device driver" for mind.
These two sectors exist in each density. Each density serves as a vibrational base for manifestation. Within the 1D space/time physical sector, when speeds are below that of light, then "space/time" and" time/space" are aspects of motion which forms all physicality.