The Nominalist Method of Determining What Is

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As to the metaphysical objects, our language leaves much to be desired in helping others understand the spiritual realities some of us experience. Dissent will come in the form of confusion and dismissal from those that have no experience in the ethereal realities, but that does not change the delivery of my descriptions - indeed, how can you make a sightless person understand the color green? For those spirits that know, I need only describe my experience and they to respond with same. Hence, we have a universal reality, albeit the question still remains as to what kind of reality it is.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

Yes the room exists. No solipsism.

I’m not sure what you mean about things arising. When I look at a rock, the rock doesn’t “arise” in my vision, my vision simply faces towards the rock. The rock doesn’t move. It is my head and eyes and body that moves.

When you say that “nothing is appearing”, that only means I am not there to witness what is there. It isn’t on the onus of reality to appear or not, the onus is on me to look.

I used the word "arising" like I would use the word "appearing". In other words, in your example, the rock "appears" to you. However, over time, the rock disappears - i.e., it comes and goes. Thus, one could say the rock arises and disappears.

You said earlier: "Without that body, that point of view, nothing is appearing."

So I responded to that statement as I did. You say nothing is appearing apart from a point-of-view, and yet you agree that the room exists without a point-of-view being required. So the room exists but it doesn't appear in any particular way. Can you describe the room at all then?

This is the paradox of reality that the mind cannot possibly grasp because it always must be a subject to what appears as object. The mind in one of its most pretentious modes even creates solipsism to try and explain this paradox.

a reply to: artistpoet

I also believe we will know more once we die ... Of course I have no proof of this

Perhaps because there is really truth in reincarnation. Synchronicity where we feel there are hints of deep truth trigger memories of lessons/experiences of past lives. And agreed I also have no proof of this.

But then when it come metaphysics what amounts to proof?

I dont "believe" we will know more once we die...I "knowing" it, rationally from experience. Gnosis.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We know exactly what happens after death...
We’ve watched people die, and witnessed exactly what happens to them after they do since the beginning of human history. The evidence for what happens to us after death is staggering, yet for some reason, it’s ok to assert that we do not know, when we clearly do.

Picture this. There is a 2 car collision. There are 2 witnesses observing from 2 different vantage points. Statements are taken and they conflict as to the sequence of events. Does that necessarily mean 1 of the 2 is lying. All it means is that they both may have an incomplete picture, coloured as well by their preoccupation with other matters at the time.
The police take both statements down as "evidence" and then use other methodologies to arrive at a truer accurate scenario. The statements of the 2 witnesses remain on file. They are not thrown out.

Different corpses will exhibit different rates of decomposition, not all will show the same gases being given off through the nose and mouth or the anus although all corpses will go through established stages of decomposition.

what happens to them since the beginning of human history.

Is this statement true? Do you include oral history in history? You do realize that oral history is accepted as "history" with real world consequences and effects.

it’s ok to assert that we do not know, when we clearly do.

You are being disingenuous to deliberately exclude other people experience that doesnt match up to your idea of "knowledge". Those experiences are real to them.

www.theoryofknowledge.info...
Epistemology- The first problem encountered in epistemology is that of defining knowledge

a reply to: cavtrooper7

That sort of thinking leads to hallucinogenic use

How and why do you come to that conclusion?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

for we have observed every area of the body and have found none of these mystical substances

In your thread
"Musings on the Genders"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

you wrote

Biology rarely shows the battles, victories and defeats one has been through. Neither vagina nor penis is a prerequisite to our compassion

Can you show me where this mystical thing called compassion resides in you? Is it part of your body?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Perhaps because there is really truth in reincarnation. Synchronicity where we feel there are hints of deep truth trigger memories of lessons/experiences of past lives. And agreed I also have no proof of this.

But then when it come metaphysics what amounts to proof?

I dont "believe" we will know more once we die...I "knowing" it, rationally from experience. Gnosis.

Let us not be timid here (speaking to myself) ...
I say I do not know to others because I can not prove what I know to others ... so I call it belief or I will be taken for arrogant
Yet I have had my own proof ... it has been a lifetimes passion/search

Yes Gnosis ... a knowing ... that which is Hermetically sealed ...
I am sure within myself ... I have my own proof
The thing is to state your truth but to not push your truth if it falls upon "deaf ears"

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To LesMisanthrope
and
InTheLight
3NL1GHT3N3D1
lostgirl, and others

Thank you all for a great thread and its good to see serious questions and deep thinking going on. Most satisfying.

a reply to: artistpoet

The thing is to state your truth but to not push your truth if it falls upon "deaf ears"

Agreed, but some ideas and "my truths" I feel passionate about.


from your earlier post...

Say for example ... an illustration of a passage of writing by myself or others ... I get a mental picture first which I also consider as thought...
Of course a painting is merely paint moved about by a brush or other implement on a canvas
The painting being a manifestation of my imagination/my thoughts

Without that first thought nothing happens, no physical object is manifested.

I often reference The Master Key - Charles F. Haanel

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Many serach for answers that way,why ,are those bad to you?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Without that first thought nothing happens, no physical object is manifested.

Yes I agree

I know this may sound contrary but I believe that everything is physical
Even though non of our technology can detect it

I understand the nature of science is such that unless an idea can be proven it can not be said to be scientifically true
However intuition pre empts science ... The idea/thought comes first as you have and I have both said
Science lags behind or follows

However I feel that some things are hidden for good reason ... meaning not provable to others by others ... we have to know for ourselves ... Gnosis ...

However like minds concur ... With a very few close friends I do not have to prove my truth ... though of course there are always differences depending on our personal experiences ... and always new aspects and things to learn and teach

Just thinking out loud here and also concurring

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To LesMisanthrope
and
InTheLight
3NL1GHT3N3D1
lostgirl, and others

Thank you all for a great thread and its good to see serious questions and deep thinking going on. Most satisfying.

I agree and thank you as well for sharing and exploring whatever we are experiencing as reality; we're all in this together.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Many serach for answers that way,why ,are those bad to you?

No "drug use for search for answers" doesnt bother me. I just dont get how a 5 paragraph OP makes you think it leads to hallucinogenic use; I guess I just wondered if you could expand on your question or statement

a reply to: InTheLight

we're all in this together

Yep agreed. I just love it though when "someone rocks the boat" and I have to question origins, assumptions belief/knowledge systems. Having tasted many religious flavours and conversant with philosophy science and law, I try not to hold onto "strong convictions". Everything is always on the table for me. I want to taste it all if my eye is drawn to the morsel, until I return to the hereafter. It is said that we chose what lessons are to be learned before we reincarnate.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: InTheLight

we're all in this together

Yep agreed. I just love it though when "someone rocks the boat" and I have to question origins, assumptions belief/knowledge systems. Having tasted many religious flavours and conversant with philosophy science and law, I try not to hold onto "strong convictions". Everything is always on the table for me. I want to taste it all if my eye is drawn to the morsel, until I return to the hereafter. It is said that we chose what lessons are to be learned before we reincarnate.

I just love it when we dare to step away from our programming or 'strong convictions' too (opening one's mind), however, for those of us who live with spiritual and/or ESP experiences letting go of those real experiences because there is lack of proof is impossible, because they are our realities.

So, we have a thirst to understand the unknown and endeavour to scribe descriptive words/mathematical equations to gain an inkling of what the unknown may be, those being philosophy and science. What is the driving force, I wonder, that pushes our desire to know/reasoning/imagination to such lengths?

I was just telling a friend (who is at this point in her life seems to be obsessed with being enveloped in/exploring the spiritual/ESP realm) that (if one is to believe in reincarnation) we chose to be here in the physical state (as well as spiritual) for a reason, and to spend most of one's time here exploring the spiritual and neglecting the physical/social aspects is (in my opinion) an unbalanced pursuit (whereupon she agreed).

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Before you literally dig into the earth must you presume that beneath the surface is absolutely nothing?