A view of The Force

That's an interesting way of looking at reality.

Keep in mind, though, that even if there are 7 levels of existence, everything is also One. It's a paradox. It may not make sense, but not everything does--not everything has to.

Fyxe wrote: Kobos I'm not sure what you mean by all perception being the same thing?

I see no space of separation but what we perceive in this realm. In actuality all things are connected and all things are ultimately The Force outside of the limitations of time and space. We have been separated from that for a purpose, so that we may be challenged to find our way home. This is the adventure!

Chakras are not so much outlets but vortexes of concentrated energy. The vortex runs perpendicular to our body not parallel. Meaning the calm place in the center is the conduit directly to the force on 7 levels. Find the quiet space in the energy and there you will find an aspect of the force! Combine all 7 together and you BECOME the force. Understand?

Thank you for the explanation, I think I get what you are getting at. So Vergere, said pretty much what I mean but I will go a little more in depth. So, I am of the opinion that due to the nature of the singular human experience what you perceive is often what you will state as fact. Look at politics for the example doesn't matter your views just look at the actions of those who are active in it. Anyways, so you perceive these levels, by perceiving them they then for exist to you and visa-versa if you cannot perceive it does it not exist. If this is the case then there is no separation in the levels it is simply perception/consciousness as a whole. Perhaps these are things one might not notice until you reach a certain point but that does not mean you cannot perceive them only that you can not actively and consciously acknowledge them. So, in the end I would assert this, it is not a state of "becoming" the Force but that you are already the Force even if you cannot perceive it. So,are all things are one? Is it a need to have levels of differences only levels of awareness of the same thing?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Yes Kobos, I agree with you and vergere. but I dont think we are all actually the force until we reach ascension. that is the purpose of our being here, the reason is the adventure to return home. There is no seperation in this. Im curious why you see such a separation is necessary in my model?

Think of it as a building with 7 floors. each floor is unique and has stuff the floor below it does not have. new stuff to explore. When you are on the first floor you have no idea what is on the floors above you before you go up the stairs to see what is there. there is no reason to believe those floors even exist but you just accept they do. this is the first step! you must accept the floors exist before you can climb the stairs.

and it takes time to explore that floor before you move up again. but these floors are not separated by anything because they are still one thing - they are the building! that is the force. now think of us as people walking these floors and climbing these stairs. we are not the building but we are in the building and the process of climbing the stairs to reach the top lets us actually meld into being the building itself. we go from a person to a brick in the building. all the same thing. the mind works the same way and so do the chakras. all seperate parts of the same thing.

Does practising this view yield results for you?

Yes, I have seen into other realms and spent time with my guides who are teaching me greater understanding. I have harnessed the power of my Chakras, at least two of them and am working on the rest.

Typically, chakras are not thought of as "powers" to "harness", but rather flows to maintain. They are nothing we have to gain, they are with us always. We merely need to tend to them properly.

So you believe in chakras but not telekinetic power? The power of the chakra can be harnessed. Where do you think the other powers come from!

So you believe in magical powers but not in any gods? Where do you think angels come from!

:silly:

Gisteron wrote: So you believe in magical powers but not in any gods? Where do you think angels come from!

:silly:

I have never said I dont believe in "any" gods. I have said I dont believe in a all powerful god. Angels are not real either. however ascended masters are often mistaken for Gods and angels. that is where the myths originate.

So you're saying that despite countless reports of angel encounters angels are not real and thus do not require an explanation, correct? Are you denying the experience of people who have had those encounters? Who are you to tell them angels aren't real?

Between the angels and telekinesis, one you dismiss as silly-talk while the other is not just obvious to you but so personal that you perceive challenges to it as attacks.
Meanwhile in the real world, the time where an explanation for a phenomenon becomes necessary is after any demonstration of the phenomenon even occurring at all has been made. For now, angels are no more lacking in that regard than telekinesis.

No, I never said I discount the experience. All I said was that because there is no all powerful god there can be no angels that he created. people can interpret ascended masters as lots of things and some of them may even say they are angels to make it easier on others they talk to. thats all I mean. I didnt dismiss anything as silly talk.

and there is a difference to challenging an idea and making fun of it. you and others were making fun of my ideas, not challenging them.

Okay, so when I say that because there hasn't been any well-documented indication (though by rights any number of witness claims) of various magical powers existing and hence I wonder why you would believe in any, that's me "making fun of" your ideas, but when you say that angels cannot exist because the idea of a god makes no sense to you, that's not dismissive of the personal testimonies of an unspecified number of anonymous witnesses?

Just what is your standard? How do you tell fact from fiction? Is there any attempt at consistency you make in this?

well lack of evidence is not evidence of absence in any sort of absolute sense. As the most all you can say is I dont know. you cant say it cannot exist. I believe in them because I have experienced them to be at least possible and I have spoken to guides of the various realms that have told me to keep believing. they never confirm or deny, just leave it open that way.

As for God, no I am not dismissing anyone, once again. like I said people can be mistaken and so my comments are attempts to correct not dismiss. correction comes with new evidence and the new evidence that I present is a logical idea that if God existed logic would not. They are opposite ends of the spectrum and since we do have logic we cant have God.

Fyxe wrote: well lack of evidence is not evidence of absence in any sort of absolute sense. As the most all you can say is I dont know.

Of course. All I can say is that there is zero evidence to warrant belief, a plethora to warrant doubt, and plenty more that would have to be false in order for the claim to appear plausible as it pretty much contradicts most of physics. Yes, technically that still leaves us with an "I don't know", I can admit as much, and I have in the past, on numerous occasions. I have also said that this was a technicality only, and that if this was a scientific or legal investigation, the report in the end wouldn't leave it a practically open question, but yes, under some highest most pedantic philosophical sceptical rigor damn near all a posteriori claims go into the "I don't know" box.

you cant say it cannot exist.

Correct again. That's why I never did, not in any sort of absolute sense, anyway. Nobody here did. Well... nobody except you, that is. You say that a god cannot exist, and thus no angels, which you also say, without reservations or qualifiers, are not real, could have been created by one. But it's alright when you do it, I guess, isn't it...

As for God, no I am not dismissing anyone, once again. like I said people can be mistaken and so my comments are attempts to correct not dismiss. correction comes with new evidence and the new evidence that I present is a logical idea that if God existed logic would not. They are opposite ends of the spectrum and since we do have logic we cant have God.

Yea, again, it's okay when you do it, but when others point at flaws in your ideas or reasoning, they are trolling, or being some other sort of mean to you. For instance, I could now point out - again - that this thing you present is not actually any evidence. It's barely any more than the raw claim itself and I did point out to you in some detail that the actual argument to link one with the other was mostly missing back in my post #344559 to which you never responded. Admittedly, it was then about truth rather than logic, but the only thing you since said on the matter aside from rephrasing the original claim is that you were convinced that the universe would be nonsense if God existed, with no further attempt at an argument towards that conclusion.

I think my attempts at conclusions are pretty clear and I think you are very good at putting words in my mouth.

I never said god cannot exist. I said (and please read this carefully) no god of absolute power can exist.

I also never said that a person cant point out flaws in my arguments. I said (read carefully again) a person should not tease or make fun of an idea. this is what you did.

Now here we are again, I make and idea and you assert its wrong, just for no reason other than you say its wrong, no evidence or counter arguments, no different idea, you just come in here and tell me Im wrong. well if Im wrong how about you do something other than just assert im wrong?

Fyxe wrote: I think my attempts at conclusions are pretty clear and I think you are very good at putting words in my mouth.

Your conclusions are clear, all right. Well, clear-ish, sometimes, at any rate. It's the arguments that I say are lacking.

I never said god cannot exist. I said (and please read this carefully) no god of absolute power can exist.

A fair nitpick. Replace all instances of "god" in my referring to your position with "god of absolute power". Then, if you wish, feel free to address the actual points.

I also never said that a person cant point out flaws in my arguments. I said (read carefully again) a person should not tease or make fun of an idea. this is what you did.

Not before addressing it fairly. I can start getting disrespectful and mocking after a while, if self-contradictions and mischaracterizations of the positions of others become a major part of someone's general posting repertoire. But yes, you are proving my point. If someone raises legitimate critique against your ideas, instead of responding to it, most of the time you end up doing as you do now, and call them meanies. Feel free to get to substance sometime soon.

Now here we are again, I make and idea and you assert its wrong, just for no reason other than you say its wrong, no evidence or counter arguments, no different idea, you just come in here and tell me Im wrong. well if Im wrong how about you do something other than just assert im wrong?

I said that you made no effort at substantiating your claim, eventhough now you say that you had presented evidence. I didn't outright say you were wrong about the content, but I can see how this may be read as me saying you are wrong about what happened in past conversations. I linked to the conversation in question where you and others can read up exactly what happened and judge for yourselves whose version of events better matches the records. You say you provided evidence in the form of a "logical idea", I say that it hardly qualifies as evidence in the first place, but even if it does, you did fail to draw the actual logical link beyond just asserting it, despite guiding questions being provided to aid your elaboration efforts.

I like your post, Fyxe. The content seems plausible to me; it is highly consistent with information I've seen shared with some other metaphysical writers from the East and the West.

I'm unable though to say either "Yes, that's right!" or "That isn't my experience." Experientially, I can relate the first two or three planes you describe to experiences I have had. To me (the limitation perhaps being my own), the rest seems theoretically possible but is nothing to which I can anchor in any personal experience.

I'm also unclear about how dimensions cross reference to planes - again the limitation being mine. I know contemporary physicists are now theorizing about ten dimensions and seven something elses (I have forgotten which term they use), but ... well, my physics education was a long, long time ago. We were taught there were just three subatomic particles and three physical dimensions - with speculation that maybe time was a fourth dimension. In today's world I hear all this talk about strings and ten dimensions and a cat that is both alive and dead, and I am lost. Occasionally I feel guilty now when I see roadkill, wondering if that poor animal would've made it across the street if I hadn't looked at it.

Anyway, perhaps there is more for many of us to learn along these lines. I wish it was as easy as "Take this course and you'll understand"; imo there are a lot of self-proclaimed teachers who will say that kind of thing, when ultimately the course just becomes a sales pitch for another course.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: ... well, my physics education was a long, long time ago. We were taught there were just three subatomic particles and three physical dimensions - with speculation that maybe time was a fourth dimension. In today's world I hear all this talk about strings and ten dimensions and a cat that is both alive and dead, and I am lost.

It's not that it was long ago, I don't think, rather you were given what was the most relevant knowledge in application at the time. Time has been treated as something quite like a fourth dimension pretty much since the days of Leibniz and Newton, though a strong incorporation into what we now know as space-time really happened with Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics, then Special Relativity in 1905 and General Relativity in 1915. Subatomic particles in most regular matter still remain essentially the three you learned about, at most with the addition that we now know that neutrons and protons can morph into one another in radioactive decay events. That there are more elementary particles however has also been known for quite a while. The muon was confirmed experimentally in 1937, for example. The sub-structure of protons and neutrons themselves was only suggested in and experimentally confirmed during the 1960's with string theory forming around the eve of that decade and the morn of the next. So that is admittedly more recent. Schrödinger's cat, on the other hand, was a thought experiment named after the very man who presented it in 1935 to illustrate (in an almost mocking tone) how unintuitive he felt dominant interpretations of quantum theory were.
The ten dimensions thing, though, is still barely taught even to physicists. String theories tend to require more than the four provided by special relativity. Ten is what superstring theory needs, but M-theory needs eleven, and bosonic string theory as many as 26! It is not entirely clear yet that the ten-dimensional superstring model is uniquely more accurate than competing ones. Not only that, but experimentally any of these extra dimensions have yet to be confirmed anyway, so in addition to the mathematical formalisms of the respective theories that can only maintain consistency when granted as many dimensions to work with, the models also have to include some account for how come we are (or so far seem to be, at least) barred from actually observing those extra dimensions or their effects. For a long time, this has been one of the strongest criticisms of string theories, as while they do unify much of physics into a basic abstract algebraic description, they do it by proposing things much further removed from observable nature than pretty much any other so exotic features formally defined in other areas for convenience.

[/nerdy aside]

Gisteron wrote: ... Schrödinger's cat, on the other hand, was a thought experiment named after the very man who presented it in 1935 to illustrate (in an almost mocking tone) how unintuitive he felt dominant interpretations of quantum theory were.

Well, geez, I didn't know that. Every time I've encountered a review of the Schrodinger's cat metaphor in (admittedly non-technical) literature, it's always been to provide a foundation for how, in the world of very small things, events actually occur - usually to convey a sense of amazement and wonder. Or maybe not ... maybe Schrodinger's mocking tone was actually printed in the book until I looked at it.

Anyway, I remain outclassed here. I don't even know how to put the two little dots above the "o", and can't differentiate between a boson and a bison.

Fyxe wrote: the new evidence that I present is a logical idea that if God existed logic would not. They are opposite ends of the spectrum and since we do have logic we cant have God.

This is the most ignorant thing I've heard today, and I use that term in the traditional sense.