I have written a book, called "Navigating Perpetual Existence." The first chapter is posted below. The book is for those that seek to achieve enlightenment, rather than discuss it. I'm looking for a handful of such people to read the book, in exchange for a written explanation of the changes, if any, the data causes in their outlook. The book is not long, 145 pages or so.
That's a rather odd point to disagree with.. I would argue that your prose is precisely aimed at perfecting one's understanding of reality. Where we might disagree is in, what seems to me, your insistence that enlightenment is the product of understanding a formula, data structure, or model based on certain aspects of reality, as told by science.something-real wrote:By the third paragraph of David Quinn's introduction, he falls into deep error. The paramount importance of an understanding of reality is not even close. Life is based in energy. Energy is perpetual. Prior to physical form, all things existed in potential energy. After physical form, all things continue in energy. The dimensions prior to and after physical form are permanent. Only this Earthbound phase is temporary, ended by physical death. As a temporary existence in a temporary space where all we perceive are configurations of molecules which are configurations of atoms which are configurations of energy, this is not reality. It is an electronic representation of energy defined into physical structures to facilitate a dimension where beings of energy, consciousness and language capacity are fused to matter.
Genius is not picking and choosing that which is agreeable. It is considering the accuracy of data, following that data to where it leads and allowing cross-referencing information to establish points of truth until the big picture emerges.
I see. And I agree. What Quinn meant by reality both considers and goes beyond the physical dimension. It is sometimes referred to as Ultimate Reality around here.something-real wrote:It's not so much that I disagree with Quinn but the common definition of reality is the acceptance of the physical dimension as such.
I haven't rejected it yet. I can only make judgements on it based on your explanations so far. We may only disagree in semantics. Who knows?I handed you the basis of actual reality and you didn't want that.
I assume you meant "mere", and to that I agree with.Also, that which is commonly considered science is more consensus.
I'm going to need more information before I can tell you whether I agree with this or not. But as is, I'll share some thoughts regarding part of it.There is a true science but it too begins with primal laws on which existence rests. When contemplating reality with the knowledge of those laws, the science remains relevant, important and must be continuously revisited. The first law of science is the law of opposites. Existence and nothing are the primal opposites. Existence is composed of energy, consciousness and language capacity. Everything else is the result of energy definition and conversion. That is the basis of reality, no matter how long it takes for an individual to understand it, and to deny it takes one down into fighting for a belief.
I merely meant your presented thesis. Probably not the best word there, admittedly.Prose?
something-real wrote:One can spend a lifetime mulling over physical substance yet achieve absolutely nothing but to pat their own shoulder in acknowledgement of their own keen insight.
I'm not offering you anything. I presented an opportunity to think.
Beneath all possibility there is a primal structure and my book explains it. It was not created to fit into anyone's preconceptions or misconceptions. It is for the few that are able to actually calculate far enough to understand matters like energy, consciousness and language capacity as the substance of life.
The books you ask for feedback on are discussions of the interactions of atom based objects and entities. That bores me.
something-real wrote:Diebert, you've digressed to accusation. I'm not here to "Play with words."
You make a decent point about co-dependency, but again, there's much here that is incomplete in itself, leaving me with little to work with.something-real wrote:Russell, The opposites are not so much one in the same but definitely co-dependent. Existence is divided into two opposites, one contains all positive energy and one contains all negative energy. This physical plane is where negative and positive human energy potential are being separated.
I understand the link you're making between existence and perception. Every possibility was contained in the original conscious energy. Those that have been actuated have become reality but all possibility exists in potential, which fuels the infinite power of the will and the vastness of existence.
What goes up must come down. As was alluded to you from the start, what you need is some dismantling.something-real wrote:Maybe someone else will explain it to you in a way that doesn't make you feel the need to build yourself up.
M. Henry wrote:Spiritual writings also have an unrecognized, almost secret aspect in that they allow readers to interpret them through the lenses of their own energy
something-real: "Consciousness is the second eternal element. Just as energy can only come from energy, consciousness can only come from consciousness. If existence was ever an inanimate space, void of consciousness, there would have been no force to initiate consciousness and life would still not exist."
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:something-real wrote:Diebert, you've digressed to accusation. I'm not here to "Play with words."
Welcome to actual discussion! Part of discussion is pointing out inconsistencies, when we think we perceive them. It doesn't seem to be something you're interested or comfortable with. Fair enough: it takes two to tango.
Russell Parr wrote:Besides that, you only make a mockery of yourself with the insults. Not that I'm not humored by it.
something-real wrote:You're an idiot.
something-real wrote:If you don't understand that we are conscious energy and that energy is an eternal force of physics then you need to study more physics.
something-real wrote:This is not a genius forum.
something-real wrote:All things.... are energy.
Russell Parr wrote:I prefer to think of us, and all things, as products of eternal causality. To call it "energy", as far as physics go, is to stick to one side of the dichotomy of energy/matter. As for as energy being an "eternal force", well there's no way to quantify that. There's no way to observe the Infinite empirically. We can instead deduce eternal facts about reality philosophically, but in doing so, we leave behind the restrictive realms of scientific thought.
Thanks for the compliment, but I'll pass the credit to those that I echo; the founders of the forum and the giants whose shoulders they stand upon.Serendipper wrote:You are truly insightful! (not just this post.)
I'm glad you bring this up. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to default to mathematical/scientific conceptualizations of infinity these days. I'm reminded of this video as an example.But I don't believe in infinity. We can say our minds are unable to comprehend the greatness of the universe without invoking concepts such as infinity. I think it's an overkill to make your point.
Infinity is defined as one-bigger than anything that exists, therefore it doesn't exist. Infinity will always be one-bigger and the full definition of it can't be realized until you leave the realm of existence and enter into the mental construct that is mathematics.
Every moment and scenario is unique, despite the appearance of similarities. Even if an "exact" scenario occurs twice, they still aren't identical by way of being separate from each other. Other than that, infinite possibilities mean that even similarities are not necessary.Infinite causality necessitates the formation of every possible thing, regardless of probability. Not only that, but such eventualities would occur an infinite amount of times. It's really ridiculous. In other words, you and I have had this conversation before... and we've had it an infinite amount of times already (and I still can't remember what you said :p ).
I consider any speculation of a God that is separate and invisible to us as pointless. To believe God to be anything other than Nature itself, of which we and everything are a part of, is likely nothing more than a feeble attempt to alleviate the unavoidable uncertainties that come with being inherently finite observers of reality.I can't recall what you've told me an infinite amount of times, but I can speculate on what you might ask as a consequence to my claim, which is: How did the first "effect" come into existence with no "cause"? Because, without infinity, that's the inevitable question. My answer to that is: God. There must be one. That's the only rational conclusion in lieu of the ridiculous.
"Free will" is just a label that describes a particular causal event. It is called free because we experience it to be free. Of course, this is quite tricky to come to terms with. But consider how easy it is to perceive that a robot, no matter how complex it's programming, only gives off an illusion of free will. It's only harder to categorize our own will as dependent because normal egotistical consciousness is conditioned to adhere to the idea of self freedom.The "ultimate freewill" could not be dependent on anything, or it wouldn't be free. Freewill couldn't be determined by causality or it would merely be another domino in the chain. Freewill is distinct from causality and the cause of causality could only be such a thing that, itself, could have no external cause.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests