Do You See Into The Spiritual Realm?

Post Reply New Topic

Remember - you can't fly on the astral plane with unchecked emotional baggage.

^

Not true - the words 'carry on' get lost with quite a bit of the people I know who do that or the sorts of personalites who seem to pay me a visit occasionally (think of urban witches burning orange candles or guys who can astrally project who hardly work and mostly go on Facebook and plaster the airwaves with more low-brow political memes than a Russian farm or maybe I could say that probably 80% of their memes are probably from Russian farms).

My guess - a lot of people who can do that stuff have cracks in their foundations that let it circulate. I've noticed no correlation with intelligence, grasp on reality or the world (sometimes less of it), or common sense. Then again I'd say I've noticed similar lack of correlation with skills at football, basketball, and baseball, ie. it seems to have much more in common with athletic aptitude than something you can arrive at by effort (although with enough meditation, or cheating with pizza toppings and window panes, you can get a foot in the door in the same way that someone whose not a natural at basketball, football, or baseball can at least make in on the field or court and not embarrass themselves).

Then there's the question of the people who don't talk about it. It's a bit like back in high school you knew who was a stoner because they were sloppy, red-eyed, looked like they had no clue what was going on, but that only ever accounted for a small number for people who smoked weed or even did it regularly. Same's probably true of people who do or can do this type of thing and just live normal lives and don't bury themselves in crystals and patchouli.

Philosophers believe in very disparate things when it comes to metaphysics. I’m not going to buy into any conception of spirituality without proof - no matter how much a particular thinker is revered and respected. Authority is not proof.

That’s not to say that I don’t find this stuff very interesting from a literary or creative standpoint.

I think it’s great that we’ve evolved the capacity to be so creative and imaginative.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 21 Jan 2020, 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Not true. I don’t hear voices by the way. Never did. My struggles in that arena have long since been resolved.

If people are free to voice their reasons for a belief in a Spiritual Ream, I’m free to voice my reasons for disbelief.

This conversation was started with a question. I’m not straying far from the original post in which there was no mention of metaphysical philosophy.

My disbelief is hardly a fringe belief. Until there’s actual valid proof, I’d suspect that my disbelief would be a cultural norm, especially in countries that were directly involved in the Enlightenment.

We have an extensive amount of evidence showing how various mental states can cause supposedly spiritual experiences, but I have yet to see any that explicitly proves that something spiritual causes them. When I’m presented with a substantial amount of valid proof, I’ll have to change my position but until then it’s not happening.

In life, I don’t believe anything with certitude without demonstrable proof.

Thank you for so kindly explaining what I would have unkindly explained.

Claims require proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  The onus of proof is upon the claimants.

Okay, understanding the nature of the thread and the conversation so far I can see how that got taken literally.

I meant internal dialog.

And if people want to mangle the frame of the conversation to fit their own needs or purposes their request can be ignored all day long in its context.

Anyone who wants to disagree is free to but when their questions never actually dial in on the topic or offer meaningful criticism past the most first-stage pedestrian level it's evidence that there's no intention of actually engaging the content.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 21 Jan 2020, 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

And it's true.... because.... it's strategically useful to you for it to be true.

Who decides what is or isn’t meaningful?

Does WP have a Meaningful Committee that decides these sorts of questions?

In the current context, it would seem that “meaningful” posts are limited to those that answer the initial question in the affirmative.

People are actively engaging in dialogue here. I’m not seeing much that isn’t “meaningful” in some way...on either side.

Is WrongPlanet a "Safe Space" or an open discussion website?

Are we all allowed to express our own opinions (and a few facts, as well), or must we all express the same opinion?

We'll I at least agree it should be semi-safe so I won't beat up on you more than it's due.

Phrasing this in a way you might be able to relate to a bit better:

If someone wants to talk physics or evolutionary biology and someone keeps waving the bible around - they aren't adding meaningfully to the discussion.

If someone wants to philosopically defend reductive materialism they can do that. If they see people talking about other philosophic frames and things that would, at worst, be highly subjectively abstracted versions of real things (and debate the line at which something's individually subjective or something more substantial) - that's a conversation where people can actually parse details and sort out differences. To clarify my view of entities - I'd follow along the line that there's something intersubjective there but that parsing the actual shape or how much of the content is intersubjective and how much of it is only personal filtering and reprocessing is a really difficult thing to resolve, just that when it bounced out of your head and into relationships with the physical world being changed you're forced to admit that there's at least some intersubjective content.

Anyone who wants to parrot slogans or keep the conversation at kindergarten or third grade level is welcome to do so, they're just not entitled to be taken seriously or have their contribution respected as such. Disagreement is a completely different matter if its high-quality or useful disagreement. Without that there's nothing to steel-man and steel-manning has to happen both ways.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 21 Jan 2020, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

I thought this was a Philosophy forum, not a personal opinions forum. I was eager to discuss and debate metaphysics even with people who disbelieve. I hoped for critical discussion and mutual respect for others' experiences.

As it stands, TS is correct that any discussion of Philosophy is shut down by people saying "It's not possible because I said so", rather than questioning or learning or showing curiosity about the field of Philosophy, even with friendly debate.

We should change the forum name from PPR to "PR" instead: meaning Politics and Religion. It seems Philosophy cannot be discussed collegially on WP, as Mountain Goat first said.

Well then, to appease my own curiosity, please answer my previous questions regarding the alleged "Spiritual Realm", its properties, and its operating principles.

While I believe that what has so far been attributed to an alleged "Spiritual Realm" is not possible, I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong.

So please enlighten me; or is that against your philosophy as well?