[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Soul

Oct 14, 2008 00:19 AM
by Leon Maurer

Rybo and Yanni,

Could it be that the problem in semantics you both have is not  
recognizing the differences (and similarities) between "physical" and/ 
or "metaphysical," and "material" and/or "substantial"?

Material things are physical and objective but not metaphysical, yet  
both physical and metaphysical things are substantial in one degree  
or another.  Therefore a BEC can be both physical and metaphysical --  
but not necessarial material. For instance, a metaphysical hyperspace  
field is not material, but is susbstantial (or objective)

Perhaps -- for a logical (rational) universe to forever remain one  
thing-in-itself -- the actual causal progression of anything between  
nothing and everything, could be:
1. Formless but not forceless (insubstantial) absolute space or Aether;
2. metaphysical (subtly substantial) nonmetric, higher order  
(fractally involved) hyperspacetime radiant energy fields;
3. physical (less subtly substantial) metric spacetime radiant energy  
fields, And
4. physical/material (grossly substantial or solid) mass-energy  
standing wave concentrations and combinations (all inorganic and  
organic forms or as Einstein said, "Ponderable matter").


'Energy is space in motion." - Einstein
"The (immaterial) fields of consciousness are coadunate but not  
consubstantial." - Blavatsky
"The (phenomenal) consciousness and the matter are dependently  
arising." - Buddha
"I and my Father are one." - Christ
"The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled." - Lao Tsu

On Tue Oct 7, 2008 5:02 pm ((PDT)), "rybo6" os_jbug  

> Yanni, communication is dependent on having common agreements of
> definitions.
> Yanni, there are things existent as metaphysical and  things existent
> as physical i.e. there is metaphysical existence and there is
> physical existence.
> I think you are hung on semantic, whatever that is.
> The problem is that do appear to be able to distinguish between
> things of metaphysical existence and the existence things of physical
> existence.
> You ask  new questions but your responded to  none of those I asked  
> you.
> You gave contradictory statements also.
> If we both agree, that we accept there exist things we call physical
> aspects of universe, then gas, plasma, liquid and solid fall into
> that catagory.
> That appears to be simple conclusion to me.
> Rybo
> On Oct 7, 2008, at 7:37 AM, wrote:
>> Rybo,
>> Do metaphysical things exist?
>> I think you are hung up on semantics.
>> Yanni
>> On Oct 6, 2008, at 3:02 PM, John Clem wrote:
>>> Rybo, A BEC is just a state of a plasma, a gas, a liquid or a solid
>>> which could be either physical or not.
>> I'm sorry Yanni, we appear to have a fundamental differrence of
>> definition here.
>> In no way can a state of plasma, gas, liguid or a solid not be
>> considered as physical.
>> Physical and metaphysical are the first generalized sub-
>> catagorizations of Universe with a capital "U".
>> If we can not come to some aggreements on this then it will only make
>> all future communications more difficult.
>> A gas can kill a person or make them laugh uncontrolably.
>> Plasma can definitely kill any biological.
>> Liguids also can kill or keep biologicals alive.
>> Solids can have many varied affects on biologicals, so Yanni, please
>> do not try and tell me those four are not physical as you appear to
>> suggest at top of this message.
>> Please try and explain yourself as that kind of statement makes no
>> sense to me.
>> Its kinda of like people who say EM-radiation is not physical, oh  
>> yeah
>> (!) well sit out naked in sun for a long enough time to burn some
>> skin and then have those people tell me how EM-Radiation is not
>> physical.
>> Hey, have then stare into a bright sun, without protection, for even
>> shorter periods of time and then have them tell me that visibleEM-
>> radiation is not physical.
>> I think you may get my drift here.
>> If you want me to get yours, again, it will take a whole lot of
>> explaining, by you or someone, tho I doubt anyone can ever convince
>> me that those four, are in anyway, *not* physical.
>> Sincerely, Rybo
>> P.S. more below but my tiime is almost out.
>>> Ultimately I believe everything is physical. But it is convenient to
>>> say that the known particles and forces are physical and the unknown
>>> particles and forces, are not physical.
>> Well, if they exist, unknown to humans or not, then they are  
>> physical.
>> You should have stopped with statement, that, "ultimately I believe
>> everything is physical" is best answer you can give, excepting
>> everything that is metaphysical, then we can move on with reasonable
>> conversation.
>> I gotta go now and hope you will respond to this physical and
>> metaphysical definning. I will try to make it to your links at next
>> opportunity.
>> Rybo
>>> Regarding propagation speeds being limited to less than the constant
>>> called the speed of light c, there is a wealth of superluminal
>>> theorires and some data.
>>> Here is a link describing data where a pulse of light leaves a cell
>>> filled with a gas of cesium atoms before it enters it:
>>> And here is a general discussion of superluminal
>>> light:
>>> So not only can light be superluminal, it can actually jump ahead in
>>> time. Don't ask me how or why.
>>> Yanni
>>> --- In, rybo6 <rybo6@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ok Yanni,
>>>> "soul" is a micro "gas" mirror of the more metaphysical concept
>>>> of "lifes a gas". :--)
>>>> I think it is incorrect to think of Bose-Einstein Condensate as
>>>> *not* be being physical i.e.
>>>> "gas", liquids, matter, plasma are aspects of the finite physical
>>>> universe.
>>>> Gas, liquids, matter and plasma are limited to propagation speeds
>>>> ergo they are not only pure, instantaneous, metaphysically
>>>> intellectual concepts of Universe.
>>>> Rybo

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application