Reality as Spiritual

[Spellbound]

As someone who has experienced the distinction between spirituality and normality, I can say that they are both equally valid. This means that God or the Primary Mover Spirit is both real and unreal, both exists and non-exists. This would mean that both sides of the argument, whether you're spiritual or normal, atheist or theist, are both correct. But how can that be you ask? Simple, infinite possibility, all sides and everything goes, even illogical things. This does not mean that reality conforms to one's whims, rather, it means that bounded telesis eliminates the infinite possibility from arising or self-actualizing to produce everyday reality with certain exceptions, such as spirituality, demons and God.

 

[Spellbound]

A question I'd like to ask is; why does reality produce these exceptions?

 

[Spellbound]

Thoughts?

 

[spidergoat]

No, that is not correct. Logic applies to all universes. A thing can't exist and not exist at the same time.

 

[Spellbound]

No, that is not correct. Logic applies to all universes. A thing can't exist and not exist at the same time.

I got the idea after reading the following:

RESPONDENT: Existent and non-existent are one?

RICHARD: G’day No. 11, If by ‘one’ you mean the two faces of the same coin then, yes, existent/ non-existent are one; mystical literature often mentions how the polar opposites continue to subsist (as complimentary poles) in awakenment/ enlightenment. Indeed, one of the appellations used to describe that integration of the divine/ diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites).

Another term is ‘complexio oppositorum’ (union of opposites). The (mystical) experience of being both existent and non-existent, simultaneously, is a god-experience (goddess, if feminine).

But behind the god/goddess-experience (‘behind’, not beyond) is That which is not only neither existent nor non-existent, but is not neither existent nor non-existent either.

This double-negation is not just a fancy play of words but a precise depiction of that which is, essentially, ineffable (as in, no attributes to speak of).

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd11a.htm#18Jun13a

In other words, existence can non-exist as well as exist.

 

[Sarkus]

As someone who has experienced the distinction between spirituality and normality, I can say that they are both equally valid.

Excuse me if I don't take your word as holding much weight. This is nothing but an unsupported claim on your part (as with many others you post) other than your confidence, which I don't share.

This means that God or the Primary Mover Spirit is both real and unreal, both exists and non-exists.

Can't be both as they are mutually exclusive: something either exists or it does not.

This would mean that both sides of the argument, whether you're spiritual or normal, atheist or theist, are both correct. But how can that be you ask?

While this appears to be an attempt to placate both sides of the old debate, trying to garner support with both, it appears to be utterly groundless. So yes, I am asking how that can be...

Simple, infinite possibility, all sides and everything goes, even illogical things. This does not mean that reality conforms to one's whims, rather, it means that bounded telesis eliminates the infinite possibility from arising or self-actualizing to produce everyday reality with certain exceptions, such as spirituality, demons and God.

Infinite possibility does not mean that everything is possible, as the infinite need not encapsulate everything. The set of positive whole numbers is infinite. As is the set of negative whole numbers. 1/9 = 0.111... with an infinite number of 1s, but there will never be a 2 in the number.
So you have to clarify what you mean by "infinite possibility" please.

You also claim that "even illogical things" are possible: so name one, please (other than humans / human actions, which are so complex that we only judge the "logic" of them against rather crude notions)? Just so I have an idea of what you're going on about.

And then you start spouting Langan's phrases as if we fully understand them, which as you would know from the multitude of other threads you raise on the matter: we don't.

And lastly, you ask why does "reality produce these exceptions" yet you have singularly failed to show that it does. You assume that it does. You have claimed that it does. But you have not supported your claims in any way at all.


Want to start again?
Or is your entire intention here just to continually post new threads about Langan's CTMU, teetering in each one on the boundary of preaching, never adequately explaining yourself or the quotes you too often post by way of explanation (which thankfully you have not (yet) done in this thread)?

Edit: Well, by the time I had written this you did post a quote. Go figure.

 

[kx000]

Why would we take non-existence into account. All we do is doom all the wrong doers to nothingness. Strike them of all their knowledge hope and feeling. See these things are positive and are for my saints.

 

[Spellbound]

Infinite possibility does not mean that everything is possible, as the infinite need not encapsulate everything. The set of positive whole numbers is infinite. As is the set of negative whole numbers. 1/9 = 0.111... with an infinite number of 1s, but there will never be a 2 in the number.
So you have to clarify what you mean by "infinite possibility" please.

Reality as everything. It indeed encapsulates all.

And lastly, you ask why does "reality produce these exceptions" yet you have singularly failed to show that it does. You assume that it does. You have claimed that it does. But you have not supported your claims in any way at all.

This is the primary reason why I quote Langan. I cannot explain these experiences nor prove them with words outside of making claims. But Langan supposedly has done so and I see reasonable support in Langan's words to post them here as a way of explaining them.

Edit: Well, by the time I had written this you did post a quote. Go figure.

No problem. I hope that quote answers the rest of your post.

 

[Sarkus]

Reality as everything. It indeed encapsulates all.

Reality only encapsulates that which is real, which can only ever consist of that which has the potential to be real.
I.e. It can not encapsulate that which is impossible, which has no potential to be real.
It is thus not an explanation of how reality can be a case of "anything goes".
Care to try again, as you continue to conflate the notion of "infinity" with "everything".

This is the primary reason why I quote Langan. I cannot explain these experiences nor prove them with words outside of making claims. But Langan supposedly has done so and I see reasonable support in Langan's words to post them here as a way of explaining them.

And yet Langan has offered nothing by way of support, and you quoting his claims to support your own claims is merely an appeal to authority on your part.
In none of this, or any other of your threads I have read, have you offered the slightest hint that you actually understand what Langan is on about, and your inability to explain it in words that others can understand only strengthens that perception.

No problem. I hope that quote answers the rest of your post.

It does no such thing, as it is yet more unsupported claims with no actual explanation of anything.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Reality only encapsulates that which is real, which can only ever consist of that which has the potential to be real.

Saying reality is real, is like saying water is wet. What IS reality, in it's entirety (if it has one)

I.e. It can not encapsulate that which is impossible, which has no potential to be real.

The notion of ''impossible'' only applies to our comprehension of what is, or not, possible.

It is thus not an explanation of how reality can be a case of "anything goes".

How is ''anything goes'' less of an explanation of Reality, than the notion of Reality being something we can fathom, claiming what it is or isn't outside of our own perceptions?


jan.

 

[river]

As someone who has experienced the distinction between spirituality and normality, I can say that they are both equally valid. This means that God or the Primary Mover Spirit is both real and unreal, both exists and non-exists. This would mean that both sides of the argument, whether you're spiritual or normal, atheist or theist, are both correct. But how can that be you ask? Simple, infinite possibility, all sides and everything goes, even illogical things. This does not mean that reality conforms to one's whims, rather, it means that bounded telesis eliminates the infinite possibility from arising or self-actualizing to produce everyday reality with certain exceptions, such as spirituality, demons and God.

Telesis is meaningless right now

but in the end our survival depends on Telesis

contradiction I know

but right now , it is god(s), religion , that dictate Humanities direction ........

 

[Sarkus]

Saying reality is real, is like saying water is wet. What IS reality, in it's entirety (if it has one)

Reality is everything that is and nothing that isn't.

The notion of ''impossible'' only applies to our comprehension of what is, or not, possible.

No it doesn't. It applies to what IS impossible, irrespective of our comprehension of what is impossible or not.
I.e. there must exist, irrespective of our comprehension, that which exists and that which does not, simply due to there being mutually exclusive concepts which can not co-exist.

How is ''anything goes'' less of an explanation of Reality, than the notion of Reality being something we can fathom, claiming what it is or isn't outside of our own perceptions?

You tell me, as that's not what I said at all. But thanks for the strawman.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

''The notion of ''impossible'' only applies to our comprehension of what is, or not, possible.''

No it doesn't. It applies to what IS impossible, irrespective of our comprehension of what is impossible or not.
I.e. there must exist, irrespective of our comprehension, that which exists and that which does not, simply due to there being mutually exclusive concepts which can not co-exist.

As I said, it is based on our comprehension. To make your statement with complete confidence, you would have to know everything, thing, within every time, within every dimension, and then anything else there might be. I bet you can't even begin to imagine reality, much less have some idea of it.

You tell me, as that's not what I said at all. But thanks for the strawman.

How do you know that impossibilities exist within the entirety of reality? Just because we deem something to be impossible based on our limited comprehension, doesn't mean it is impossibe in another time, place, dimension, circumstance.
You seem to be saying that Spellbounds definition of reality was not correct, and you went on to give your definition. How is his definition incorrect and yours correct?

jan.

 

[Revelation In Space]

As someone who has experienced the distinction between spirituality and normality, I can say that they are both equally valid. This means that God or the Primary Mover Spirit is both real and unreal, both exists and non-exists. This would mean that both sides of the argument, whether you're spiritual or normal, atheist or theist, are both correct. But how can that be you ask? Simple, infinite possibility, all sides and everything goes, even illogical things. This does not mean that reality conforms to one's whims, rather, it means that bounded telesis eliminates the infinite possibility from arising or self-actualizing to produce everyday reality with certain exceptions, such as spirituality, demons and God.

What is spirituality and normality are subject to the same illusions or interpretation. To say they are both equally valid is to say that they are no more valid than any other shit you might make up. God is just an ancient word that means mighty or venerated. To say that he, or she or it exists and non-exists is just a sort of uninformed metaphysics. Sounds really cool but isn't. The concept that atheist or theist are both correct isn't nearly as interesting or practical as the fucking obvious, which would be that neither are correct.

You can self actualize (dream of bullshit) all you want. Subscribe to a paradigm slanted in either direction but that does nothing to establish any tangible hypothesis. Intellectual masturbation. On the flip side you can dismiss in ignorance what actually is the guise of intellectual superiority Biblical knowledge due to established and well documented teachings of pagan influence. Now then you are getting into at least more interesting territory.

Over educated idiots, like most of the dullard cunts that frequent this forum - ha - ain't going to ever reach that level of sophistication because they are stupid.

 

[fogpipe]

A question I'd like to ask is; why does reality produce these exceptions?

There are no exceptions, it is as it is or it isnt. Its only confused thinking that makes it seem otherwise.

 

[river]

to me reality , the macro-world , is important to the spirit

why ?

because the spirit wants to live , in this form , all life fights to exist in the corporeal , the physical world

it learns here

 

[scorpius]

As someone who has experienced the distinction between spirituality and normality, I can say that they are both equally valid. This means that God or the Primary Mover Spirit is both real and unreal, both exists and non-exists. This would mean that both sides of the argument, whether you're spiritual or normal, atheist or theist, are both correct. But how can that be you ask? Simple, infinite possibility, all sides and everything goes, even illogical things. This does not mean that reality conforms to one's whims, rather, it means that bounded telesis eliminates the infinite possibility from arising or self-actualizing to produce everyday reality with certain exceptions, such as spirituality, demons and God.

There's nothing spiritual,,if there is prove it!