We have a few differences.
We're really just two blind men casually sharing thoughts about things that we've noticed in our personal darknesses, aren't we?
Not more than an hour ago, I woke from my night's sleep after posting my last to you, And I'd swear that, for less than a few minutes, the veil between my normal ignorance and understanding became significantly thinner. I actually "think" I may have "seen/understood", albeit briefly, what I've recently been hoping to understand. Whatever I saw/understood, it faded quickly, and the remaining thought I had was: I ought to go back to my last post to Aupmanyav and delete or rework this sentence: "The challenge for me lies in the use of the word "illusion": that word seems, IMO, inaccurate and distracting." Ha! Too late to rework it, so delete it for the time being.
There are no things moving around. It is just a vibration of the force field, which makes us see the various movements.
Hmmm, ... you say "tomahtoes" and I say "tomayters"; you say "potahtoes" and I say "pertayters" ??? or are we comparing my apples and your oranges? I'm not sure.
Science has not yet spoken about it.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that's what "Science" has dared to express opinions on in all its chatter about quantum stuff? My tutor in 2003 strongly denied quantum theory, as well as Einstein's relativity, and encouraged me to do the same. So I have to admit to biases against both.
Do things move in a video but they seem to move.
I suspect that it's because I am, currently, a proponent of "substance monism"
- which asserts that "a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff ... (source: wikipedia's commentary on monism); and
- IMO, the "stuff" consists of an infinite number of fundamental "things" which my tutor called pythagorean "atoms" (i.e. "uncuttables");
- All of which make up a single set: the Cosmos.
So I'm obliged to favor "movements" over "vibrations".
- Yeah, I too believe in infinite reality.
- My stumbling block is existence and non-existence.
- What kind of this infinite reality is?
- It cannot be an eternally existing reality, because that would require an explanation as to from where it has arisen.
- That takes out a God or Gods and Goddesses from the equation.
re: #1. Whew! That's one potential irreconcilable difference out of the way, eh?
re: #2. Put this on hold for the moment.
re: #3. Beats the hell out of me....I've been under this banyan tree for a good long time and I still don't have it figured out.
re: #4. *screeching brakes" .... does not compute. Either I don't understand or it seems to me that an infinite, eternally existing reality doesn't need an explanation as to where it came from, nor when it came "here" nor how it got here. It's always been and always will be, right where it is now.
re: #5. Don't you think there would be room in an infinite, eternally existing reality--assuming that one exists, of course--for other non-human Beings that would like to talk to us or that we'd like to talk to if given the chance? [Maybe someday, you'll let me tell you about the Mormons. They have darn near as many, if not more, gods than theistic Hindus have. At least one Mormon I'm acquainted with wrote a paper [my paraphrase] about where to put them all.]
Question: Should we take this blossom of a conversation private or restrict access to it?
On the other hand, ... it may not last long enough to worry about it.
Regards