Why I do not consider the metaphysical immaterial

[Adonai One]

How do you wish to be, manniz?

---

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.

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?

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.

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.

So the distinctions are illusory and are not based on any empirical observation?

[Unbound]

How do you wish to be, manniz?

---

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.

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?

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.

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.

So the distinctions are illusory and are not based on any empirical observation?

The empirical observation would be the observation and awareness of an "inner plane" (time/space) and an "outer plane" (space/time).

[Adonai One]

How do you wish to be, manniz?

---

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.

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?

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.

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.

So the distinctions are illusory and are not based on any empirical observation?

The empirical observation would be the observation and awareness of an "inner plane" (time/space) and an "outer plane" (space/time).

Distinguished by what? Physical phenoma? Only death? Is death the only differential? Or could the human vision be simply tuned? Is the differential biology or is it simply an aspect of an illusion provided by a construct beyond human knowing?

[manniz]

How do you wish to be, manniz?

A1, English is my third language. Sounds like it is not your first either. Elaborate more my dear immigrant brother. Me no comprehend.

I hope you did not take this as offensive bro. It was a light-hearted joke. English is truly my third language, and I went through a phase too, where I used too much vocabulary, but hard to always keep dictionary or google around.

[zenmaster]

How do you wish to be, manniz?

---

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.

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?

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.

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.

So the distinctions are illusory and are not based on any empirical observation?

The thinking is based on inductive reasoning from empirical observation, then distilled by deductive reasoning into parsimonious, logically consistent, postulates. From the postulates, the system of theory was created.

Of course the theory is "illusory" (as any theory is), it's a mathematical abstraction which offers an ability to express the action of physical laws (determined by the logos).

[Adonai One]

So you have chosen foundational coherentism as your logical approach?

[zenmaster]

The test of a useful theory is whether or not that abstracted explanation is consistent with empirical observation, and can it predict things not yet observed, also can it be falsified?

[Adonai One]

So you're more of a coherentist? I don't embrace falsification as I find it inherently negative. I will not deny things as under all things is a truth. I work in a neo-positivist approach so far as to infinitely justify beliefs until it is evidently clear that the belief is justified. I cannot work under the notion that a belief is simply justified because it is coherent with other beliefs that are simply justified on their own merit. To only find one belief correct after falsifying all else is to leave me without any direction in regards to what is potentially misjudged.

I am not properly skeptical to the point of an existentialist approach of reality but I will not go as far as accepting beliefs on the basis that there is knowledge just for the sake of it. I embrace practical beliefs. I find it impractical to justify a belief if the belief is not based on any real experience but only theoretical, coherentist constructs.

I realize philosophical academics would probably laugh at me right now but I cannot argue on a notion of justifiable merit nor falsification. I am an infinitist, philosophically.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

[Unbound]

How do you wish to be, manniz?

---

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?

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.

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.

So the distinctions are illusory and are not based on any empirical observation?

The empirical observation would be the observation and awareness of an "inner plane" (time/space) and an "outer plane" (space/time).

Distinguished by what? Physical phenoma? Only death? Is death the only differential? Or could the human vision be simply tuned? Is the differential biology or is it simply an aspect of an illusion provided by a construct beyond human knowing?

Dreams occur in time/space, the "inner plane", as well as other forms of shamanic journey and inner meditation. I consider the "inner plane" to be the internal world of experience, where we imagine, visualize, dream, remember and gain inspiration, whereas the "outer plane" is the external world of experience where we use our bodies in the collective reality.

You could say the "outer plane" as space/time is the objective end of the spectrum and the "inner plane" as the time/space is the subjective end. These, of course, are my own interpretations.

[zenmaster]

So you have chosen foundational coherentism as your logical approach?

Larson took a coherentistic approach as anyone must do when defining building blocks. He understood the limitations, and so do I. Of course the limitations are the strength of the theory when one knows the line in the sand must be drawn.

---

So you're more of a coherentist? I don't embrace falsification as I find it inherently negative. I will not deny things as under all things is a truth. I work in a neo-positivist approach so far as to infinitely justify beliefs until it is evidently clear that the belief is justified. I cannot work under the notion that a belief is simply justified because it is coherent with other beliefs that are simply justified on their own merit. To only find one belief correct after falsifying all else is to leave me without any direction in regards to what is potentially misjudged.

I am not properly skeptical to the point of an existentialist approach of reality but I will not go as far as accepting beliefs on the basis that there is knowledge just for the sake of it. I embrace practical beliefs. I find it impractical to justify a belief if the belief is not based on any real experience but only theoretical, coherentist constructs.

I realize philosophical academics would probably laugh at me right now but I cannot argue on a notion of justifiable merit nor falsification. I am an infinitist, philosophically.

The problem with that line of thought is that scientists do not actually use your idea of "belief". Fortunately they are trained to know better.

[manniz]

So you're more of a coherentist? I don't embrace falsification as I find it inherently negative. I will not deny things as under all things is a truth. I work in a neo-positivist approach so far as to infinitely justify beliefs until it is evidently clear that the belief is justified. I cannot work under the notion that a belief is simply justified because it is coherent with other beliefs that are simply justified on their own merit. To only find one belief correct after falsifying all else is to leave me without any direction in regards to what is potentially misjudged.

I am not properly skeptical to the point of an existentialist approach of reality but I will not go as far as accepting beliefs on the basis that there is knowledge just for the sake of it. I embrace practical beliefs. I find it impractical to justify a belief if the belief is not based on any real experience but only theoretical, coherentist constructs.

I realize philosophical academics would probably laugh at me right now but I cannot argue on a notion of justifiable merit nor falsification. I am an infinitist, philosophically.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

A1, have you tried posting at other forums? Lots of potential catalyst waiting in the wings.

Most philosophical academics would simply ignore, as should I. I feel happy today, so cannot resist the catalyst. I learned new words though. Especially coherentist. Have not seen that one since Philosophy 101, though I am not sure if I can pronounce it correctly.

[zenmaster]

You could say the "outer plane" as space/time is the objective end of the spectrum and the "outer plane" as the time/space is the subjective end. These, of course, are my own interpretations.

Ken Wilber has subjective (time/space) as "interior" and objective (space/time) as "exterior" in his AQAL model:

In Spiral Dynamics, and in the Ra Material, subjective, time/space, interior begins to be explored at the Green vMeme / post modernist stage of development. It corresponds to about the middle subdensity which is just beyond the yellow vibration of thought.

edit: wanted to add that interestingly, when green is activated, when that subjective nature is finally touched, as Ra says "at that point incarnation ceases to be automatic." Which makes sense because one finally has some handle or ownership of both time/space and space/time aspects of self.

[Unbound]

Oops, just realized in my previous post I put "outer plane" twice, second one should be "inner plane".

[zenmaster]

I learned new words though. Especially coherentist. Have not seen that one since Philosophy 101, though I am not sure if I can pronounce it correctly.

It merely means that consistency is the measure of "truth", which is really only applicable to philosophical considerations and *not* scientific theories. Discerning scientists do not actually identify with the theory as an actual basis for reality (as "truth") *because* it is coherent, it's just that it *must* be in order to be practical. Scientists are ever trying to find better models (knowledge systems) which serve to explain observation and experience and so the investment is their time, not their belief as identification (as a child would tend to do before understanding models).

Typically science follows philosophical insight contemporary with theorectical development. Ra's "transformation of mind" where experience is refined is at work in the collective mind, just as it is in the individual. So knowledge systems, such as those developed by scientific inquiry, become less and less distorted. But as Ra says of our particular society, also "overly complex" (which I take as a hint).

[Adonai One]

So you're more of a coherentist? I don't embrace falsification as I find it inherently negative. I will not deny things as under all things is a truth. I work in a neo-positivist approach so far as to infinitely justify beliefs until it is evidently clear that the belief is justified. I cannot work under the notion that a belief is simply justified because it is coherent with other beliefs that are simply justified on their own merit. To only find one belief correct after falsifying all else is to leave me without any direction in regards to what is potentially misjudged.

I am not properly skeptical to the point of an existentialist approach of reality but I will not go as far as accepting beliefs on the basis that there is knowledge just for the sake of it. I embrace practical beliefs. I find it impractical to justify a belief if the belief is not based on any real experience but only theoretical, coherentist constructs.

I realize philosophical academics would probably laugh at me right now but I cannot argue on a notion of justifiable merit nor falsification. I am an infinitist, philosophically.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

A1, have you tried posting at other forums? Lots of potential catalyst waiting in the wings.

Most philosophical academics would simply ignore, as should I. I feel happy today, so cannot resist the catalyst. I learned new words though. Especially coherentist. Have not seen that one since Philosophy 101, though I am not sure if I can pronounce it correctly.

Academics would scoff at my religious beliefs; The spiritual laugh at my academically fringe beliefs; Everybody laughs at my fringe beliefs; The fringe find me too rational in my beliefs. I am left with nowhere to go to but a blog -- and to forge my own way.

[manniz]

I learned new words though. Especially coherentist. Have not seen that one since Philosophy 101, though I am not sure if I can pronounce it correctly.

It merely means that consistency is the measure of "truth", which is really only applicable to philosophical considerations and *not* scientific theories. Discerning scientists do not actually identify with the theory as an actual basis for reality (as "truth") *because* it is coherent, it's just that it *must* be in order to be practical. Scientists are ever trying to find better models (knowledge systems) which serve to explain observation and experience and so the investment is their time, not their belief as identification (as a child would tend to do before understanding models).

Typically science follows philosophical insight contemporary with theorectical development. Ra's "transformation of mind" where experience is refined is at work in the collective mind, just as it is in the individual. So knowledge systems, such as those developed by scientific inquiry, become less and less distorted. But as Ra says of our particular society, also "overly complex" (which I take as a hint).

Cannot blame scientists for not using belief as a basis for their models. Will be hard to get belief peer reviewed too.

That hint is certainly fair. I cannot figure out, where the breakthrough discovery will come from, or the huge change in mindset. Cannot really blame scientists though. They have to work within the previous network of research and academia. I am thankful for whatever the science has discovered so far. At a young age, science greatly helped me to get over traditional religious dogmas. Science seeded the initial questioning in my mind.

---

Academics would scoff at my religious beliefs; The spiritual laugh at my academically fringe beliefs; Everybody laughs at my fringe beliefs; The fringe find me too rational in my beliefs. I am left with nowhere to go to but a blog -- and to forge my own way.

Forever a rebel. Blogging would be a good idea though. Beliefs as ideas should not be laughed at that easily. The form of presentation is a fair target. What do your guides.higher-self suggest?

Blogging certainly seems like a good investment of energy. Will help you catalog and organize your ideas too.

[sunnysideup]

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.

Interesting, Tanner.

I also have the feeling Eternity and Infinity are not the same concepts. Although both seem to have no ending, however I only see Infinity as having no beginning. In my mind Eternity is spawned by Infinity.

[Unbound]

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.

Interesting, Tanner.

I also have the feeling Eternity and Infinity are not the same concepts. Although both seem to have no ending, however I only see Infinity as having no beginning. In my mind Eternity is spawned by Infinity.

Conveniently came upon this quote which touches my thoughts well.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.