I don't have anything to add to Creative and Sky exchanges at this point, but I wanted to say I am enjoying it ; - )

This is the real meat on the bone that separates our world views. I enjoy reading an honest discourse.

The synonymous nature of words is important, and when we come to agreement on meanings it deepens the conversation, so DING DING bonus points!

But now where do we go from here . . . It always seems to come down to the chicken and the egg, what came first, matter or mind . . .

I agree. I does always seem to end up there.

But I must say that the process of getting there is almost always edifying - at least for me anyway.

No kind, which is my point. It's an important distinction scientifically but I don't think many people here care about it.

"I'm real but everyone around me and likely even my own body is illusionary." That's exactly what it is.

As it doesn't say anything about individuals we're not precluded from having many others in the same situation.

I'm more on the note of "does our body have airbags or do our astral selves smash their (important part) open as it comes to a sudden halt and maybe snap their (connective section) in half as they recoil from it?"
Does the body have airbags for the soul?

I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so.

Well I think it has to do with what you are saying not how you are posting it.

Take this remark for example:



I have no idea what you are talking about and I have read all three books by Robert Monroe about out of body travel.

If you want to know about the astral world and the astral body try reading his three books.

Naw, I think your just wearing them out, good on you! When it was just me and creative we tend to get wore out first.
So BRAVO!

Yeh its good to have some fresh meat in the forums. LOL
Bushi and Creative tend to loose it from time to time dealing with such abstract ideas. They get frustrated.

Not the way I would put it but yes we do get frustrated.

Well it may say that to you, but that's not what it says to me. To me it says, there is me and there are others, and those others are just as real as me.

Exactly.

Back to the game analogy again…

Do the characters have airbags or do the players smash their (important part) open as it comes to a sudden halt and maybe snap their (connective part) in half as they recoil from it?

Does a character in a game have airbags for the player?

The questions don’t really apply.

Is that what this is all about? "Wearing them down?"

If so, what is the purpose or end result of doing so?

My purpose in answering all the questions is to provide information that will allow a better understanding of my views.

What is the purpose in asking them?

That remark is evidence that they don't give a rats *** about our views, they just want to push their own upon us.

So why should we share them?

Well, for whatever it's worth, I have genuinely enjoyed reading your posts Sky. I have found much of what you have posted to be quite interesting and enlightening.

You have helped me to gain some deeper insights into the various possibilities of the true essence of reality.

I was well aware of this months ago.

It appears that their argument takes the form of: "Science cannot be used to support any type of spiritual idea and we will yell and scream and throw temper tantrums if anyone suggests otherwise!"

Yet, where is the scientific theory that science denies all possibly spiritual views?

I've never heard of any such scientific theory and I've been involved in science my entire life. Is this a new theory?

I think it's extremly ironic that they often try to pretend that I'm the one who is misrepresenting science when in fact they are the one's who misrepresent science.

There is no scientific theory or rule that states that science is incompatible with any and all ideas of spirit.

So where do they come up with this idea? It's not from science, I can assure everyone of this. Unless it's a brand new theory that I've never heard about.

Sorry I'm late - I've missed a lot (illness)got the better of me.
Anyway - catching up, I had to pause to comment on the interaction between Sky and Crative.

Sky wrote:


Just a suggestion but Perhaps you are taking the link between cause and effect much to literally.

We cannot always determine what 'reason' has caused a particular action but that doesn't mean every action is without cause or reason.

The link or reason for an action may have it's origination many steps prior to the action. Example - I just received the most amazing thing in the mail - a Mrs. Potato head. I was so excited to have gotten it and everytime I look at it, I feel happy. The toy is not the reason I feel happy it is the memories that my friend wanted to envoke that provide the reason for my joy, the fact that she know this icon would be a way to share the memories of over 40 years ago when we sat and played with REAL potatoes and the plactic pieces that got inserted into the potato.

I have seen dozens of potato head toys and not once has any given the same joy - so the link to my joy is NOT the potato head but the memory that was invoked becasue it came from this one specific friend.

Cause and effect are sometimes illusive links. I'm not sure how this will affect the discussion between you two but it seems to be a point that is hanging you both up - so maybe a new perspective might help.

And that is exactly why I am here too - essentially to gain a better understandingh of the world around me - including the viewpoints of others. And the discussions we have had have helped immesurably in assisting me in refining my own philosophy - or at least in refining ways to express it.

Well really, that’s kinda where I’ve been going all along. The whole elusiveness of the cause-and-effect chain.

This whole thing started with the assertion (mine and Jeannie’s) that “meaning” is assigned and essentially constitutes a comparative association which is entirely subjective.

Creative and I are just trying to come to some agreement as to exactly what “intrinsic meaning” is or would be.

Di wrote:

That is about the extent to which they align in philosophies. This is my personal observation, it may be incorrect. So I invite Abra, Sky, and JB to confirm or deny the observation which states:

"humans are no more than a transient vehicle through which a non-physical entity experiences a physical realm"
Abra responded:



Yes, correction understood.

Sky responded:


I think you and Abra are saying the same thing – that I needed to differentiate between humans and human bodies, suggesting that mind is separate from the body.