Spirituality and the Existence of Spirits

existence dosent have to be physical...ideas exist. if they didn't you wouldn't have them. two is just an idea. but it exists if it didn't exist you wouldn't know about it and we wouldnt be talking about it.

Originally posted by daisychainsaw
existence dosent have to be physical...ideas exist. if they didn't you wouldn't have them. two is just an idea. but it exists if it didn't exist you wouldn't know about it and we wouldnt be talking about it.

so out of 100% , how much of everything is physical and how much is non-physical? Can it even be measured?

i dont know mabey mabey not 8, 42 yes
(Written at a later time by my friend): I agree that it is not possible to measure it, i dont even think it's possible to define both those things as only TWO things there may very well be infinite amounts of variation and therefore could never and definately never be explained.
(wittenlater by daisy)
yeah well...that.mabey.

Originally posted by daisychainsaw
i dont know mabey mabey not 8, 42 yes
(Written at a later time by my friend): I agree that it is not possible to measure it, i dont even think it's possible to define both those things as only TWO things there may very well be infinite amounts of variation and therefore could never and definately never be explained.
(wittenlater by daisy)
yeah well...that.mabey.

So how do we go about explaining these phenomena, which are undeniable to us, but to our athiest friends, in all honesty, prolly think we're deluded?
Any ideas/angles?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So how do we go about explaining these phenomena, which are undeniable to us, but to our athiest friends, in all honesty, prolly think we're deluded?
Any ideas/angles?

I am thinking daisy is getting close to saying something like "to exist is to be thought about, and vice versa." That's sort of an idealism, and given a hint of theism, it leans toward objective idealism. Which with your comment, chucks me once again off the atheist bandwagon, 'cuz I don't think that's any more deluded than metaphysical materialism, which is popular with some atheists.

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (C.S. Peirce, collected papers, 6.25). (Wikipedia, objective idealism)

(I take "effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" to mean mind that has lost potency as an agent, so is no longer acting, but is acted upon.)

Originally posted by JS357
I am thinking daisy is getting close to saying something like "to exist is to be thought about, and vice versa." That's sort of an idealism, and given a hint of theism, it leans toward objective idealism. Which with your comment, chucks me once again off the atheist bandwagon, 'cuz I don't think that's any more deluded than metaphysical materialism, which is p ...[text shortened]... an mind that has lost potency as an agent, so is no longer acting, but is acted upon.)

From a Buddhist perspective -

"Of particular relevance in this context is the doctrine of the two levels of reality, or the two truths.The two truths are the conventional truth of everyday reality and the ultimate truth of the indeterminable nature of reality. These two are also denoted as the seeming and the ultimate:

'The Knower of the world distinguished these two realities.
The one is the seeming, the other the ultimate-
There is no other third reality.'

For ordinary beings the appearance of macroscopic reality is a 'seeming' reality that obscures the actual ultimate nature in which all phenomena are indeterminate and illusion-like...
...The seeming reality of the everyday world is taken as the ground from which the analysis begins; the thorough analysis, however reveals repeated signs that point towards the ultimate nature:

'These phenomena are like bubbles of foam ...
like illusions, like lightning in the sky,
like water moons, like mirages.'

This is not to say there is absolutely nothing; but rather there is nothing substantial to be found in the manifestation of the seeming play of appearances."

"Quantum BUddhism - Dancing in Emptiness", G. Smetham p58

Ultimately, all is Mind-sourced.

Who, where or what is this Mind?

It is not any objective thing, as it is the Ultimate Subject that enables all objective phenomenal perception and experience.

And thus it also is neither personal nor impersonal, nor is it to be located in either the animate world or the inanimate, yet there it is before our eyes!.

It is neither solely within nor solely without, for it manifests everywhere and in every appearing 'thing' or thought.

How marvellous!

Originally posted by daisychainsaw
existence dosent have to be physical...ideas exist. if they didn't you wouldn't have them. two is just an idea. but it exists if it didn't exist you wouldn't know about it and we wouldnt be talking about it.

there is a difference between existance and essence

Originally posted by Taoman
From a Buddhist perspective -

"Of particular relevance in this context is the doctrine of the two levels of reality, or the two truths.The two truths are the conventional truth of everyday reality and the ultimate truth of the indeterminable nature of reality. These two are also denoted as the seeming and the ultimate:

'The Knower of the world distingu ...[text shortened]... manifests everywhere and in every appearing 'thing' or thought.

How marvellous!

"Who, where or what is this Mind?"
The "who" is us. We are just asleep to our true , unified identities. All is Mind and once your are awake to this fact, you will find that there is no "you", just the entitiy that "contains" all conciousnesses.

The "where" is nowhere and everywhere, one of my fave paradoxes. It can only be hinted at in a holistic language.

"What" is the same as "who" .

The great exodus out of the dualistic, third dimensions continues, as people are starting to understand the purpose of human life, which is the Great Journey back "Home".

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"Who, where or what is this Mind?"
The "who" is us. We are just asleep to our true , unified identities. All is Mind and once your are awake to this fact, you will find that there is no "you", just the entitiy that "contains" all conciousnesses.

The "where" is nowhere and everywhere, one of my fave paradoxes. It can only be hinted at in a holistic ...[text shortened]... o understand the purpose of human life, which is the Great Journey back "Home".

Alan Watts was basically onto it, then.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"Who, where or what is this Mind?"
The "who" is us. We are just asleep to our true , unified identities. All is Mind and once your are awake to this fact, you will find that there is no "you", just the entitiy that "contains" all conciousnesses.

The "where" is nowhere and everywhere, one of my fave paradoxes. It can only be hinted at in a holistic ...[text shortened]... o understand the purpose of human life, which is the Great Journey back "Home".

It can be seen as a Journey to Now.
Or a Journey inwards to our moving, dancing center,
like a Great Space yet full of power.
It seems, and is a journey - but
when we think we have "made it" (do we ever?)
it seems as if we are where we started from,
the same, yet different,

Somewhat Like the Mandelbrot set,
ever-changing, never-ending,
a journey of ever bringing
a completion out of unfinished chaos.

And how perfect it is that
seeming chaos is
so utterly necessary
for a victorious completion
to be experienced.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure if a number can be said to exist.

3.

Yup. I'm pretty much sure it exists.

Originally posted by JS357
Alan Watts was basically onto it, then.

Allan Watts was one of the first to bring Zen Buddhism to the U.S., was he not? a pioneer?

Originally posted by Taoman
It can be seen as a Journey to Now.
Or a Journey inwards to our moving, dancing center,
like a Great Space yet full of power.
It seems, and is a journey - but
when we think we have "made it" (do we ever?)
it seems as if we are where we started from,
the same, yet different,

Somewhat Like the Mandelbrot set,
ever-changing, never-ending,
a journ ...[text shortened]... hat
seeming chaos is
so utterly necessary
for a victorious completion
to be experienced.

"dancing centre". I get the context and gist of this comment in this paragraph, but I'm sure there are many who misunderstand this analogy.
Obviously it refers to quantum, but more than that, one needs a direct insight into this "dancing centre" to even be able to utter anything semi-legible about this "centre".
One must not confuse this with some intellectual speculation, these ideas are built on firm, 'ground' stabilizing experience and not any sort of one upmanship-type hackney wordplay for the appeasement of ones ego.

Originally posted by shavixmir
3.

Yup. I'm pretty much sure it exists.

In your mind maybe 🙄

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"dancing centre". I get the context and gist of this comment in this paragraph, but I'm sure there are many who misunderstand this analogy.
Obviously it refers to quantum, but more than that, one needs a direct insight into this "dancing centre" to even be able to utter anything semi-legible about this "centre".
One must not confuse this with some i ...[text shortened]... nd not any sort of one upmanship-type hackney wordplay for the appeasement of ones ego.

There is no "I" or "my".
Its all "we" and "us".
My ultimate center is your ultimate center - the same one.