Illusion Vs Reality

A person directly or indirectly influence by Kantian philosophy, consciously of unconsciously devide reality into the phenomenal and neumenal whether he use those fancy terms or not. The phenomenal world is the world we experience, thought to be created by the 'mind'. It is then said that it is what it appears contrary to the neumenal which is thought to be what it is (not what it appears). A person then goes ahead to say the phenomenal world is an illusion. After all what mind forms is normally termed as illusion.This world view is appealing to those who want to beleive that there is more about reality than what we can perceive. The neumenal reality is said to be the true reality. God can be thought of as such reality. Because everything we experience is assigned a lower folder; phenomenal, it is then said that the neumenal world is unknowable. It can't even be arived at through reasoning.It is thought by some people that the Kantian philosophy influenced the modern physics. This makes lots of sense. The no-answer-answer is the characteristics of modern physics, beginning with Einstein's relativity. After all what is the point of understanding reality if we can but get only half a picture of one? This thinking enhance positivism, tree-in-the-forest reasoning and shut-up-and-calculate no answere answers to perfectly sensible questions. To illustrate that this Kantian philosophy influenced Heisenberge and other quantum brewers, one can say that the wave function is the neumenal and the particle is the phenomenal.The glaring problem with this Kantian reasoning is that of obfusicating or even forgetting ABCD once we learn EFGH! So this issue, contrary to how you may think, is not settled by going to a university. Rather a breif tour back to kindagarten is absolutely necesary! Essentially words are defined ostensively by pointing to and naming. There is no other meaning of words apart from that!! So how do a whole philosopher ends up confusing himself with the need to define words using other words that arouse for the soul purpose of written communication? The detailed debunking of Kant is long. But the summary goes; the onus of defining a word goes to the one using the word. Because Kant cannot point to anything and utter noumenal, the word must be treated as simply meaningless! No difference with the word bugaboo! I can go round and round talking of wonders of bugaboo to you but this is against the very essence of talking; communicating.There is no meaning of the words 'as it is', 'as it appear', 'reality', 'illusion' etc apart from the meaning we arbitrarily assign them for the purpose of communication. To ensure that you don't loss track in a jargon, a breif tour back to kindagarten is always necesary. A good guide is done this way: everytime you use a word, ask yourself a question: what if an ET who doesn't know English was my audience, how will I guid him to understand what the word mean? Let us begine with the 'as it is' vs 'as it appear'. We more or less take a banana, then take a painting of one place both of them on the table point to a picture and utter 'as it appear', point to the banana and utter 'as it is'. That is the only way! If latter, one uses the word 'as it is' to resort to what he claims he cannot even point to, he is lieing out of necesity because in kindagarten, we establish the meaning of 'as it is' by pointing to and naming. You won't understand this latter 'as it is' not because you have limited understanding, as you can be fooled, but because the philosopher is using the phrase INCONSISTENTLY. It now means two contradictory concepts. One is illustrable for the purpose of communication, one is not so for the purpose of the theory. He switches back and forth between the ireconcilable meanings whenever it suits him! When you get hopelessly confused, he can always claim that it is all because he is presenting such a buffling idea that you, a mere mortal, can never fathom! Since almost everyone seems brainwashed to think that our understanding is limited, such guys suceed in selling the snake oils!We can even illustrate better the incoherence in Kantian philosophy by watching the way he uses the reasoning he wish to dismiss as phenomenal to convince us that there is a world, neumenal, that cannot be known through reasoning. Remember that the entire story is itself just another human reasoning! The mind cannot possibly imprison and limit itself under the concepts of its own formation such us 'phenomenal'. Our guy talk of a world that 'it is' as opposed the world that is the formation of mind. He is clearly using concepts we form by observing what he calls phenomenal. We do notice say a billiard ball, then we do notice that there are people around who looks like us in many aspects. I do see that Alice is seeing a billiard ball. Because Alice and the ball, as seen as two things, there is the ball 'as it is' on the table and 'as it appear' in Alice's head. Right? Wrong!! If there is ever a thing 'as it appear' in Alice's head, then it is as it do so TO US, not to Alice. Hopefully, Alice, like the brewer of the whisky, sees the ball AS IT IS just on the table like we are seeing!! I agree though that it is a little bit puzzling to grasp this!THE TREE-IN-THE-FOREST REASONINGPhilosophers often teas us a bit by play of words. They try to convince us that we are leaving inside a buble gas. Thanks to this word 'proof'. Like I have hinted above, unless the word 'donkey' resorts to a thing we can't question it should rifer to for the soul purpose of communication, the word 'donkey' is simply meaningless! Let us apply this measuring rod to the word 'proof' and hence 'truth'. It means if humanity is to use this words meaningfully, some things must be held UNQUESTIONABLY true and/or proofs! The 'question everything' slogan is not entirely wise! The common behavior that originates from every one wanting to be correct is not very wise!Lets consider the tree-in-the- forest reasoning. It poses: do the tree make sound when no one is observing? Do the tree disapear when you are not looking at it? Those who pose such question normally wish to say that our assumption that there is a solid world out there is just that; assumption, because no one can prove that a thing exists without seeing it. Right? Wrong!! What does the WORD 'proof' suppose to mean is such a context. The tree you see is not a proof that there is a tree. It is THE TREE. You won't tell an ET 'proof' by simply pointing at a tree. To use 'proof', we must concoct a story and make claims about the existence of a thing that isn't perceived by the ET at the moment. Then latter, we provide the evidence. So if things surreptitiously apeared when observed, we won't use the word 'proof' at all as a claim of a thing prio to observation will not rifer to anything.So like I said, the tree you see is not the proof that there is a tree. It is just that; the tree you are seeing. There is no meaning of 'proof of existence' existence even while staring right at the tree. Existence of the tree can just be CONCEPTUALISED or failed to be conceptualised. The concept of the tree's existence is same whether you are seeing it or not. We just form the concept of an existing tree in the forest and we don't get the proof that it exist by starring at it. We just see the tree that looks like the one we imagined. One can say this is the true essense of proof, proof that the tree I imagined can be seen (not exists); one which makes the tree in the forest reasoning irrelevant. It reduces to the question; can the tree be seen when you are not seeing it? Of which we can leave it for the funny farmers to keep themselves bussy!ASTRAL WORLDS AND UNSEEN REALMSHopefully, I have clarified some concepts here and there. Like I hinted, we realy should not be bothered with whether things are 'real' or 'exist' because even people using those words often get reluctant or even annoyed when you dare them to define the words. We are interested with the CONSISTENCE and objectivity of astral realms. It is not for mere curiosity or '3d indoctrinations' but these are artributes we desire from experiences.

"Been a little bit since I posted any jams on here. This is one of my favorite songs from the 80s. Good jam right here :) https://youtu.be/wfCih9eF-aw?si=7TjlM7fgnjmOg-eT"

"I love the fact that one can benefit from melatonin, from solar near infrared, even through a cap....Did my run in the sun, again today...after that last message..Actually, being a "nordic" racial type I can glean benefits easily from the sun, as I…"

You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!

Join Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community

Comments

Roaring Lovely June 1, 2015 at 3:18pm

The echo vs the sound=illusion vs real as long as you henceforth remain faithfull to this analogy. My major point is that I can perceive both the echo and the sound. What I can't swallow is the claim that I can but only perceive echoes!
Ara May 31, 2015 at 8:22pm

i would say there only one reality - God's - it is like compare one's Echo to one's Voice - 'illusion vs reality'

This reply was deleted.

Spiritual Blogs

Illusion Vs Reality

Comments

Featured Blogs

Calm In The Midst Of The Storm

Book: ASHTAR – A Tribute Compiled by Tuella

The Fiery Forces Of Creation Are Sweeping The Earth - June 22th, 2022

Interdimensional Being: Where Do You Consciously Reside?

Note: this page contains paid content.

Latest Activity

New Forum Posts

You Want Believe What The Simpsons Predicted For 2024

Oneness & Divine Love By AA Zadkiel & Linda Robinson

Is This A Theme Unfolding For You As Well ? By Melanie Beckler

Can you see the images in this?

Note: this page contains paid content.