Special Composition

[wisp]

Hi climehoser,
I think I know what your saying. I think it's about thought and perception and figuring it out and gaining staying power.

I like the concept of creating your own reality. There is power in this thought system. Seems there is a challenge to maintain it. I think God is in it. The power source that gives me the freedom to experiment.Personally I think we have no more power to exist than what God allows.God likes thinkers.This is why I think it's all about thought.

I think what your talking about is directed toward language.
I see it as a way to define or put things in catagories.In my own point of view, I think it's about using our symbols, our circumstances, our associations, and the correct time factors so as to pull together more understanding and gain strength. By gaining understanding and strength more can be done to help understand the things that cause things like sickness and social problems. By arriving at synchrony in your life your at a threshold where more things are possible. These possibilities can be on a personal level or even effect others.
For anything to be gained personally one must be able to define it. To share it one must be able to communicate. Therefore, I think the main thing is gaining understanding about oneself first and also being able to develop increasing communication skills among others. What you learn holds information for another person for instance.
I think there is more sharing of information than ever before needless to say. Someone has to be the one to step forward and express something to further understanding for all concerned.
I'm glad you shared what you have to say. I think I know what your saying. Someone else may get a different idea of what your talking about. I also wonder about the meaning of life in what is considered inanimate objects. Is that what you mean?

You talk about an astral double of a rock. In my view it is seen as a different reality or a different dimension. I would think what it is composed of is only significant in the reality your in at the time. I like to add the time factor so as to expand the possibilities so as not to waste time on things that can't be figured out.
My perception of real time is a circumstance or situation that manifests itself with proof. Not in the skeptical sense as you say, but in the sense you learn or gain something from it, what ever it may be.And this gained knowledge can be utilized and demonstrated.
So far for me, I have found no separation from my different parts. I do have to look at the various parts that may be a signal to achieve more. I see illness and injury as opportunities for this. Achieve ultimate health. If an injury occurs, why? And what steps are needed for ultimate recovery?  []

[climbhoser]

You make some very good points.  I actually answered something like that to my metaphysics professor and he just about thunked me on the head...anyway, they're not always the best.  Pieces of paper seem to matter more than their true ability sometimes.  Anyway, I like to ask these kinds of questions, I think metaphysical thinking about the perceived and the perceiver are difficult for me at times, hence my interest.  
take it easy
peace

[climbhoser]

So, I was thinking about this today after a long while of not, and had a couple of questions regarding Wisp's response, if anyone can clarify for me:

Regarding God liking thinkers: When I introspect upon this subject, I find myself in a bind with language that grants God sentience as if he were a seperate entity with extrenal powers.  If this is what you mean by "God" then let me know, as my quarrel with the thinking regarding this is with a different sort of "God."  So, for me to analyze I come up with something like this: God's liking of thinkers translates to an objective statement that sounds like "Thinkers are more able through their thought to move circumstantially around the particulars of the universe."  It's beneficial if and oly if the thinker finds it beneficial to have said results from his or her thinking.  We say "God likes thinkers," because we assume that thinkers find the results of thought as said to be beneficial, and thus enjoy the fruits of their labor.  

I understand this all to be very abstract stuff, and yes, Wisp, it is about being CLEAR.  It's about using a language that fits for everyone, a terminology, if you will.  It can have multiple languages, but what is the most streamlined terminology?  I find this an interesting subject not only because I have myself become confused in interactions with others, but also because of my research about astral travel.  Perusing this site I find all kinds of news about telekinesis, astral travelling, lucid dreaming, etc...and I find myself wondering if what is being spoken of is the same thing imagined when I hear these terms.  I cannot astral travel, I cannot move objects with my mind, and I have not been able to lucid dream...as of yet.  At least not in the sense I have imagined it (Lucid Dreaming is the only one I think I am correct in imagining tho I have yet to experience).  Could "Astral Travel" be a metaphor for something else?  Could it be more easily spoken of in a common sense language that doesn't mislead the general public into imaginings of the mystical and magical?  Or is this the entire point?  Perhaps I am right in my imaginings and it is all mystical and magical.  However, I'd rather people be blunt and to the point.  

Further introspection has led me to a much different perspective of what "Astral Travel" is and what the "Astral Dimension(s)" is/are.  I see it as a focus thing, an attention thing.  We can focus our attention on the external around us, reality as it were in front of our waking, open eyes.  We can focus our attention on daydreams, fantasies and theories.  We can introspect on definitions, logics and sensations.  All of these are different "planes" so to astrally speak, of reality.  Each of these different categories of our experience, if we so choose to divide them, are divideable into black, white and grey areas.  I could go on and write a common sense language book on this if I knew I was right.  So, I begin to write this book in hopes to gain a response telling me whether I am right or wrong or both or nothing.  In hopes that I have at least spoken of it, told something or someone my feelings on the subject.  Hell, they needed out.  

So, without further adieu, I leave you all, and let me have it!

[climbhoser]

hello, I am new here, will post a general hello above.  But, for now I had a pressing, metaphysical question.  While reading Astral Dynamics I came accross an interesting thought about astral beings.  Bruce says that anything with a consciousness has an astral body or double.  To tell the truth, I haven't worked my way entirely through the book yet.  So, the entity he spoke of as having an astral double in the astral landscape in question was a rock.  My question pertains to the question of composition (if any of you have read Peter Van Inwagen it would be of much help).  So, is it the rock itself that has an astral double as per its consciousness?  And then what of its proper parts such as the molecules that compose it?  Do they have their own consciousness as well or merely compose the physical presence of the conscious body within the rock?  I can see where if they did have their own consciousness, they would be doubled in balance with the real-time doubles and even in the astral world.  But then there is no end to conscious beings.  And it is also then difficult to say whether I am a seperate consciousness or whether I am the composition of many consciousness, such as the composition of the consciousness of my arms, my legs, my torso, my heart, the atomic and subatomic particles that so divide them, ad infinitum.  

I know I might seem difficult, but this is not my intention...I am merely very, very detail oriented with many questions about theories that I believe can lead us to even higher states of understanding.  I am no skeptic.  I am also but a novice astral traveller.  

Back to my questions...Van Inwagen talks about the only objects that exist are those that are a life.  And nothing is a part of something unless it composes a life.  Such it is that a rock, for instance, is simply stuff of the earth arranged rock-wise.  This is an interesting take, but clears up many of my questions in that I am one consciousness, with physical parts constituting the physical whole in which my consciousness resides.  And also, the rock does not have a consciousness nor do its parts proper.  Very difficult, indeed.  Of course, I could simply intuit, and say that an object is simply what I see as seperate from another thing.  For example, there is a thing that is the cliff...a rock on one of its ledges is a rock, not part of the cliff like the ledge itself is.  The ledge is not itself, but a proper part of the cliff.  But how, then, can I say there is such a thing as the ledge?  Would I not have to say something like: it is the ledge-like feature of the cliff to keep my language correct?  And how do we justify circumscribing this problem?  Anyway, any thoughts, ideas, ponderings, and questions, of course, would be much appreciated and are greatly encouraged.  Please don't let my post sit alone left unthought about.  I do fear that people will not take me seriously, but I am wholeheartedly serious.
thanks
peace be with all