Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

With what you believe is the true nature of reality.

No, what I SEE as the true nature of Reality. Belief requires thinking. Seeing is not thinking. As Patanjali said;

'Yoga is the complete cessation of all of the activities of the mind'

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, what I SEE as the true nature of Reality. Belief requires thinking. Seeing is not thinking. As Patanjali said;

'Yoga is the complete cessation of all of the activities of the mind'

Both thinking and seeing are different forms of interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

If it falls apart, so be it.

It will, I assure you. It is only a temporary 'fix' on Reality, as all conceptual ideas are. As you grow, however, you will develop what Baudelaire called 'the taste of the Infinite'.

http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/arSeeker.htm

The important thing for you is not to allow yourself to be personally attached to your ideas and concepts about Reality. That will only hinder your progress and growth, and ultimate fulfilment.

 

[Runewolf1973]

To the contrary, it is negation of duality.

The value it demonstrates is not in conceptualization, but in seeing it for what it is. The former is about thinking; the latter about intuitive insight.

Your words... "in seeing it for what it is"...indicates another duality. There is seeing and that which is being seen.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It will, I assure you. It is only a temporary 'fix' on Reality, as all conceptual ideas are. As you grow, however, you will develop what Baudelaire called 'the taste of the Infinite'.

http://www.selfdiscoveryportal.com/arSeeker.htm

The important thing for you is not to allow yourself to be personally attached to your ideas and concepts about Reality. That will only hinder your progress and growth, and ultimate fulfilment.

I am very much fullfilled. Perhaps you are just full of yourself?

 

[godnotgod]

Both thinking and seeing are different forms of interaction.

On the current level of reality you exist within, they are. On a higher level, they are illusory, just as the hero you play is real on the level of consciousness that is dream-sleep but on the next level of wakefulness, it is not.

 

[godnotgod]

I am very much fullfilled. Perhaps you are just full of yourself?

Ooooh! I touched a nerve ending! OUCH!

Smugness and fulfilment are not quite the same condition.

 

[godnotgod]

Your words... "in seeing it for what it is"...indicates another duality. There is seeing and that which is being seen.

You keep missing the point. That which is being seen is not an object of seeing:

'The spiritual experience is that of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merging into a single Reality'
Deepak Chopra

 

[Runewolf1973]

You keep missing the point. That which is being seen is not an object of seeing:

'The spiritual experience is that of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merging into a single Reality'
Deepak Chopra

The point is that what you are saying and the words you are using can just as easily be mistaken for a duality as can what I say and the words that I use. Neither yours, nor my view is dualistic, so just stop trying to argue the point with me. Like Unification was trying to say...we are on the same level. We just have different words for the same thing. It is only the fool who sees division and discord where there is in fact none.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ooooh! I touched a nerve ending! OUCH!

Smugness and fulfilment are not quite the same condition.

So perhaps you should focus a little more on your own fullfillment and not be so concerned with my views.

 

[Unification]

It will either be proven or disproven by science.

Science is worried about the physical facts and evidences that confine to its own laws on what is fact vs. fiction.
Whether something is proven or disproven by "science," means it's only proven or disproven by "science."

The fact that not everything is physical, that the abstract easily defies and breaks scientific laws is abstract proof enough that the physical and science doesn't have a monopoly on what is fact or fiction for everything and nothing. It has its own conditions, laws, and standards as to what is fact or fiction. When it comes to physical, objective evidence... I love and embrace the monopoly it has on the "physical" facts and fictions.

What doesn't exist physically, exists abstractly where science isn't reliable nor in its expertise. The abstract always comes before the physical.

The nothingness, or abstract, or Animating Factor, or dark energy, or Pure Consciousness, or Pure energy is that other dimension. It is another dimension beyond the physical dimensions of height, width, and length, yet interacting in the midst of everything. It is beyond the physical and fundamental laws of science, so science in its current limited state of laws given by mankind, really won't and can't prove everything and nothing fact or fiction besides the physical and within its limits and scope. It'll never be "absolute" facts and fictions.

 

[Unification]

Somewhere along the line man wanted to know what was real and what was not, so man created the scientific method to help filter fact from fiction. It is not about going against or ahead of nature, it is about understanding nature.

Mankind wanted "knowledge of" what was real over "knowing/experiencing" what was real. Everything is always very real without the need for "knowledge of" it. Which is fine, some like it that way... it's not for everyone.

Understand "physical" nature, nature is more than the physical. Let's keep science within its boundaries and own laws and not make it to be more than what it is and does within its scope. It has boundaries and limits and they end at the non-physical.

 

[Unification]

Both thinking and seeing are different forms of interaction.

"Different" forms. One is abstract, the other is physical. One is more complex interaction, the other isn't as complex.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Science is worried about the physical facts and evidences that confine to its own laws on what is fact vs. fiction.
Whether something is proven or disproven by "science," means it's only proven or disproven by "science."

The fact that not everything is physical, that the abstract easily defies and breaks scientific laws is abstract proof enough that the physical and science doesn't have a monopoly on what is fact or fiction for everything and nothing. It has its own conditions, laws, and standards as to what is fact or fiction. When it comes to physical, objective evidence... I love and embrace the monopoly it has on the "physical" facts and fictions.

What doesn't exist physically, exists abstractly where science isn't reliable nor in its expertise. The abstract always comes before the physical.

The nothingness, or abstract, or Animating Factor, or dark energy, or Pure Consciousness, or Pure energy is that other dimension. It is another dimension beyond the physical dimensions of height, width, and length, yet interacting in the midst of everything. It is beyond the physical and fundamental laws of science, so science in its current limited state of laws given by mankind, really won't and can't prove everything and nothing fact or fiction besides the physical and within its limits and scope.

It is not beyond anything. It is not beyond everything. It IS everything.

 

[Runewolf1973]

"Different" forms. One is abstract, the other is physical. One is more complex interaction, the other isn't as complex.

Fundamentally both are interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Mankind wanted "knowledge of" what was real over "knowing/experiencing" what was real. Everything is always very real without the need for "knowledge of" it. Which is fine, some like it that way... it's not for everyone.

Understand "physical" nature, nature is more than the physical. Let's keep science within its boundaries and own laws and not make it to be more than what it is and does within its scope. It has boundaries and limits and they end at the non-physical.

Science has its boundaries, but those boundaries are always getting bigger.

 

[Unification]

It is not beyond anything. It is not beyond everything. It IS everything.

Yes, agreed.

I stated it was beyond science, it's physical laws, and the fundamental laws of science.

 

[Unification]

Fundamentally both are interaction.

Thanks for simplifying. We can eliminate the "complex" and just leave it as interaction.

Fundamentally, cat poop and the human mind are both interaction.

 

[Unification]

Science has its boundaries, but those boundaries are always getting bigger.

Of course. As those boundaries expand, everything is more abstract and less physical. Leaving more and more fickle situations.

Definitely agree though that as the boundaries expand, the physical becomes clearer.

 

[godnotgod]

It is not beyond anything. It is not beyond everything. It IS everything.

He means it is beyond the SCOPE of science.