SP - 12 -- Phillips Responds To Phillips Phenomenology Comments By TCI Writers

First, I want to thank Lon, Erich and Bruce for their responses - especially when confronted with a self proclaimed piece of esoteric knowledge - LOL. It is a real rush to read the variety of possible thought patterns formed when responding to a singular posting of the nature I provided. Indeed, as you are probably sick of on our blog is me going to the Phillips Phenomenology already so much - I guess it is the freedom I feel on this blog to respond at the most fundamental levels of perception that I use as my reference point.

(To everyone, it was the PP that jolted this blog into existence - that post is in the sidebar - it is the comments between Bruce D., Flower, and myself - that inspired a morning exchange in E-Mails between Bruce and I where I said something along the lines of - don't be surprised to see me take this into a new blog idea - and 45 minutes later TCI was born and the URL sent to Bruce - who immediately replaced the pathetic original look I had for TCI. --- I like to review this history on occasion to inform readers who may be new to TCI.)

Anyway, thanks guys for your posts and let me first respond by saying -- WHAT -- YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN SYSTEM? ---- lol --- Oh, well, only my mind has such pollution within it evidently. Although Lon, that sounds suspiciously close to a phenomenology and Erich - your latest post http://psychonauticus.blogspot.com/2010/12/set-and-setting-top-ten-guide-to-4th.html on your site easily suggests a `digestion of reality is known' - and I want to assure you that despite my totally gray hair that my perspectives have the same backings.

Indeed, let me look at Erich's response first - and my reaction is that I love your writing style and appreciate having you in the starting rotation at TCI. Anyway, let me respond to:

I'll confess I've never been able to understand phenomenology (yet); in fact it took me three tries just to spell it for this response. My natural instinct as a autodidact, then, is then to dismiss it-- distract the imaginary thesis dissertation professor with a card trick. And another is to urge the realization that once we drift too far into the realm of big words and fixed ideas, we can get lost.

Again, awesome start had me laughing out loud and I'm not bs'ing - to be called `the imaginary thesis dissertation professor with a card trick' - is one of the highlights of alltime comments about my ideas. And, I agree, the idea of a fixed set of ideas, in the realm of big words, (whatisnotabletonotbe - for instance), is an area that despite the fixtures surrounding us all - can allow all to get totally lost in just positing the perceptions `correctly'.

I visualize this as a two dimensional chessboard, and "I" am the king, able to move in any direction, one square at a time. However, there may be spirits or enemy pieces in squares very close to mine who can't touch me due to only being able to move diagonally, and so forth. And of course, there's the off board vastness, where the murdered pieces go.

I'm using my editor's power to feature just how cool your writing style is above - this a A+ TCI stuff and thanks for getting the idea of directly commenting on words within the seed.

However, all that said, I found Phillips' phenomenology graspable, as it reminds me a little of Seth speaks and a lot of other channeled info I've read over the years (Rick, you're a channel!) The spirits who've channeled through me, I should point out, have tended to be rogues and charlatans, angels and devils disguised as each other... they do this so well I have to take what the angels say with skepticism and appreciate the tough love behind the tortures of Hell. In the end, they're all you, and me, togetherrr-- Sarah. So the question is, do you trust yourself? Can you tell when you're lying to yourself? If you answered yes, then right there, the answer is no.

(To speak in Gurdjieff talk) - This one has not thought about Seth in ages - and indeed, as this one expressed, these were NOT my thoughts - this one swears. This one visited with the spirits of the plant at extreme levels for years - when this Phenomenology `came thru' at the most extreme stoned levels on the herb from the Colombian farming community. With you and Lon reaching into some of the `sub-space' of the Phenomenology Structure and anyone knowing that the same is happening to Bruce D. (by his writings of his experiences, especially lately) - the very idea of `channeling information' hardly seems beyond reason.

I haven't read Barbour, but I think I understand the concept of reality 'picking the next moment' -but I also know how little effort is actually involved in making the 'next' picked 'moment' completely separated from the normal path, it's all done with the ease of flipping a cable channel... if you know how (and our social order makes it as hard as possible to know how, and with good reason). I would agree that time is illusory, and/or relative, but so is space, once you escape our three dimensional consensual reality --even one's own personal non-able to be-ness can be dissolved, re-manifested, obliterated and returned to like a book some elder god reads before bed time. And on that level, so is life, and certainly language. When you transcend time, space is not far behind, and language has to be let go long before that... if you can--through whatever neurochemical or spiritual means at your disposal--get a grasp of this fathomless eternal moment, you won't be able to bring your notebook

All it involves is a slight shift in brain chemistry, the equivalent of letting go of the structural life raft and trusting to breathe in the salty water... the doors of perception kick open and what was once merely, say, a candle in front of you in the darkness, becomes an axis in time/space, hell, Jesus on the cross, God, Moses' burning bush blazing five miles in the distance as you travel through the desert night, and the eye of a dragon as it slithers on scales of air and smoke through your boudoir, all at once, and you now understand why what to you is merely the picking up of a book off a coffee table is life and death to distant civilizations, cities you can reach only through sleeping, shrinking to sub-atomic level, or traveling to the opposite end of the galaxy, the realization that your entire life and set of memories is all encompassed in every drop of water you

Again Erich, you absolutely can `bring it with words' -- now, I must include another name of a writer that I can't express how highly I enjoyed his take on how perceptions are formed -- Lujan Matus. Now, I won't go into here my own perceptions but you can find his main work on Google books (except what they don't include so that the book will have value to be purchased). Anyway, he speaks much about the imprinting of every object at the earliest of ages for a child and boy oh boy - does it make sense. (BTW, I treat ideas as ideas and don't hold them up to `proof' of divine origin - like Lujan's ideas really being told to him by Don Juan - as Don Juan did with Carlos Castaneda. To me, it's the minds of Lujan and Carlos at work in putting the ideas to words. Indeed, I kinda like that Phenomenology has no real need for some divine origin. Actualization is actualization - explain it - that is Phenomenology.)



In my PP, the not-able-to-be would ONLY be `within ones own space' - quite possibly at what others have called the `do spot'. It's the part of the structure that actualizes YOUR real - that will be reflected to others - in other parts of the PP. Ironically, while the PP maintains that EVERYTHING is a `Space' - it all was motivated by a question I had in my mind `How Could Time Have Ever Begun?' (time in the traditional common consensus)


I imagined a field of `ableness' - `able-to-be(ness)' - that emerged from -- indeed -- Nothingness. Nothingness, included potential. (much to its surprise I suspect) However, this able(ness) was ONLY that for an `ending eternity' - which to the PP emerged as a `limitation of that space' - into the momentum of `one of the PP' concepts (and I have an argument for each).


People who experience smoking DMT or doing ayuhuasca or iboga in shamanistic studies, will tell you--their eyes wide with respect and trepidation--that the world is much wilder and stranger than we can imagine, and it's all right here around us, all the time-- our reality is like Hot 97 on the FM dial, but all you need to do is turn the knob a bit to the left or right and our reality dissolves into static and some mighty strange stations start up, and when you're completely outside it, you realize the whole range of stations is played at once--and has always been playing, just waiting for some radio to tune it in-- the pure possibility and intent.






Indeed. However, one only needs something such as `Mutual Hypnosis' as done by Charles Tart to induce real explorable mutual worlds perceptions as real as ours too. The availablity of other perception structures is mindboggling for sure.
 
Frankly Erich, I could have commented on nearly every line you wrote as it was so rich in ideas - so I will leave my response at this and move onto Lon:
 
Lon, anyone who would consider you just a person with a successful paramormal - should read your response - thanks for taking the time to be HEAVY -- just as Erich was (and I too I hope). And, I see much truth in much of what you write - indeed, I believe ALL TCI writers to be on somewhat the same wavelength in some manner.
 
First Lon, when you start with "The body is our general medium for having a world."  -- the brilliant statement of Maurice Merleau-Ponty - I would add just one thing --- The World Is Earth. We, exist on a F-ing planet - that is indeed embedded with the characteristics as real as ours. If we were NOT on a `world' -- as we may be after dying - our experiencing altered states - the field becomes boundlessly ----------- able-to-not-be.
 
There is a wide belief that all humans are composite beings, meaning that we have two fundamental sides...a body and a soul. In the language of remote viewing the soul is known as the ‘subspace aspect’ of a person...basically the non-physical component of a human being. When death occurs the physical body is no longer a composite being but continues to exist as a subspace entity. The physical realm of solid matter is both separate from and connected to subspace


Using my PP - it would be how the future becomes the present that becomes the past (the actualized part) - all being connected viaspaces of the phenomenology structure.
 
Anyway Lon, thanks for adding to the discussion with a full pedal to the floor driving of worthwhile reading heavyness.
 
And, Bruce - what the F can I say - our minds are frighteningly similar. I loved your disclaimer.
 
The Net of a Experiential Web




1. Reality as a state of sentience is non verbal. The conversion of perception to thought, whether it is measured in the velocity studies of biochemists, Krishnamurti or Zen, there is a process of transcription. The `structure' of phenomenology provides the field for transcription. Indeed, a transcription is also `painting' that phenomenology.


2. This transcription by language based on semiotic environmental cues is based on comparative relationships that the mind analyzes, much like the basis of the perception of sequential time. It is a process that is a quasi-reality superimposed on a pre-existing non verbal state of discerning what G Spencer Brown would call "distinctions" - Like `the most similar with the least intrinsic difference'.


3. These distinctions create an illusion of movement. Whether it is the linearity of calender time, the biological arc of creatures, or then versus "now." - The `notabletonotbe' stamp is the final count of potential.


4. All perceptual information being transcribed by thought within the illusion of movement, makes all knowledge a matter of context in which predictors are scrims, or self referential to the environment in which they arise. I would only add that IMO knowledge is also part of the unactualized.


Beyond The Mesh of A Web



Reality is a tripartite relationship of the non verbal, hence invisible becoming manifested while the verbal, the perceptual and material dissipates into the non verbal, and our own locus as such is that we are poised in the reconciliation of becoming. The most arduous process is to see that neither the invisible nor the visible are the point of the exercise, that our reality having one foot in biological material and the other invisible even to itself, underlines the often quoted reality cited by Jesus, wherein, we have no place to rest our heads, a truism. Heavy Duty Stuff.


One aspect of myself as a locus of manifestation is never the same twice and yet much like the photonic perception of vision, there is a external perception that there is a form of a steady state rather than a discontinuous one that is neither material nor entirely invisible, otherwise these words would be transparent beyond your ken. To me too the `steadiness' is nearly totally perplexing -- especially without IMO the PP idea of not-able-to-not-be(ness) - the determined. Which as self-conscious spaces - we `see' as a flow.


Paranormality



The process of the transcription of thought applied to non verbal referents of time is akin to a movie screen that reflects this reality of neither being rooted materially or completely invisible. Our space time is not discrete.


It is the inverse square of our triangulated perception, that is reality, that by it's nature cannot be ascribed to our orientating markers. Do they have this level of thinking on other websites?


Finally, I want to take on the words of TCI author Bruceleeeowe who put this in the comments section of my post:


Hello Sir,



your phenomenology much sounds like philosophy. This is very similar to eastern philosophy of karma and 'Meemansa' . A recent work in quantum physics suggest that time could indeed be an emergent phenomenon like gravity. I'll like to review the case in context of that paper in next post. It's said that philosophy is easier to comprehend than physics but now, I know it's not! Bruceleeeowe, thanks for your ` comment' - next time please put it as a post response so that everyone knows what writers on TCI have to say. That said, I'd LOVE to have you do a post like that - work it up ---- we will get the timing down better in an e-mail to everyone shortly. Anyway, I'd love to read the connection between Meemansa, gravity, time and the PP.




Okay, readers of TCI - I think my mind has about reached the end point of this session.


I want to thank the responders to our posts too - and when you post as a TCI writer please respond to those commenting on your posts too.


I want to thank again, Erich, Lon and the Bruce's for the use of their subspaces in their minds - may we do it many more times.

SP-12 The Phillips Phenomenology

First, I want to thank all the writers on the last seed post - some excellent material folks and excellent mindblowing pictures too. I'd also like to recall these words from the first post made in this blog back in July:

The reason is to provide something not readily available to the world; - a discussion by a set group of invited people - about the implications of consciousness to humans and the world as a whole.



Nearly all of the invited people to write on this blog have already proven themselves, via the internet, to possess significant interest in the esoteric with a bent to `open-mindedness' to ideas in general. That is - while still possessing SIGNIFICANT opinions on nearly all paranormal subject manner. Many of those opinions will be supported by direct experiences or even investigations

So, with part of TCI's opening positioning statement above, I want to take an editors prerogative and delve into my absolutely personal writings about what I consider to be HUGE ideas - that I'd like our group of respective minds to respond to if possible. And, it would help to leave all pre-conceptions about EVERY fundamental idea behind when we begin; also, if possible, before beginning - I'd like you to vaguely consider in your mind one of the hottest ideas in renegade physics -- THAT TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

Now, I will not trot out the `common man' idea that `time is just a construct so that our minds can understand the reality our senses digest --- even IF that is entirely true. NO, this is going to go MUCH deeper if I am correct (I defend my ideas as only a theory of course.) Indeed, what I hope to show you in just a few words is that EVERYTHING IS A SPACE - EVERYTHING. Including `time'.

Also, at this time, I will not go into again `how' these ideas came into my head in the 1970's; but, if one explores my blogs enough one can find out more (or the links I provide). But, it isn't important - what is important is that the `ideas' you are about to read `came to me' - and at the time - seemingly - were coming into my head from somewhere else. Call that whatever you want to.

Anyway, dozens and dozens of pages of this material `came' to me over the course of a year or so - a time when I had to have `my notebook' close to me for when the `rushes of information' would `come'. The information also came in the form of one poem even and really can be reduced from dozens of pages to just several `concepts of phenomenology' - in the most basic fundamental sense.

Like other writers on phenomenology - like Sartre and Husserl - the Phillips Phenomenology consists of principals and works outward in a sense from there. And, while in my mind I construct differing ideas on the `structure' and flow of these ideas - I can easily form `structures' that allow any of the ideas to be the `most fundamental' - so hang onto your hats and minds. Remember, leave all your ideas at the door opening.

First, I guess, I will refer to my above blanket statement and cutting edge science - that TIME does not exist -- and my statement, along with this edge science - that everything, yes everything, is a SPACE. Not only that - is a `space' with ONE overriding characteristic BECAUSE IT IS A SPACE - and that is --- that the space --- IS --- NOT-ABLE-TO-BE.

`Your' space - is `counted' and counted once - as having a location and placement compared to other spaces. `Every' space you have - HAS EXACTLY `THAT' AS IT'S MAIN ATTRIBUTE. It's unique `moment' of space - as it were. THAT moment, with all its relationship to other spaces - in any form - is a moment of balance that reflects a NOT ABLE TO BE (ness).

Now, here's the BUT.

BUT, there are `different' types of `spaces' -- some of which -- seem `timelike'. And, some of which, perhaps all of which, have a direct connection to the phenomenology of `our space' that is NOT ABLE TO BE.

Such as the concept of `other spaces' - that are seemingly NOT OURS. That are NOT our space of not able to be(ness). As indeed, the world IS composed of more than us. More than ONE (not able to be). And, when two `real' not able to be's (as opposed to a memory or imagination for now) - yes, I'm talking about YOU and anything else from a book to a spouse - are in the `same perceptual space' - several other aspects of phenomenology `run off' of the not able to be (structure).

Perhaps at this `time' it would be best to broach the subject of `timelike spaces' that are REAL - ie: two real folks sitting in a room; and `timelike spaces' that are NOT REAL - like memories and imagination (but are real in an `other sense - can see how layered this all is I hope).

First, `immediately outside' of ones `space', ones body, - is the entire universe and all of it - to you - is `able-to-not-be'. ALL of IT. IT is the `timelike space for YOU' and YOU are included in the same manner for IT. And, as these NOT ABLE TO BE and ABLE TO NOT BE - `spaces' overlap, literally, `run off' of each other -- something happens. Actualization happens. The REAL happens. The Event happens that corresponds to the perception of the event.

And, that singular event has ONE attribute that is counted as real - an attribute best described as `NOT ABLE TO NOT BE' - the determined real. Our personal `world' is a `past' that `determines' our personal NOW Space. The space of the not able to not be.

Light and consciousness probably determine the `size' of this running off of the not able to not be - but IT is absolutely infinitesimal in it's attachment to everyNOT ABLE TO BE (like you and I).

And, that is because of this upswelling of that `timelike space' the `able to not be'. The able to not be upswells from both the past and the future. It includes all the past events AND unactualized events of the past - IT also includes the entire future. Including all the SPACEs you will ever perceive or have had the opportunity to perceive.

When described this way - The `space' that is timelike --- this `able to not be' space --- IS EVERYTHING EXCEPT one thing -- it is EVERYTHING except `the intentionalities' of your personal `not able to be'. Your now. My now. Your space. My space. Yes, the glimmer of freewill. The spec of freewill that `runs off' of your personal not able to be.

Looking at the world - the reality we see - in this manner - allows for much in the realm of `paranormal'. Indeed, looking at phenomenology in this manner - allows all kinds of `able to not be(s)' to BE in existence. Literally in a different AREA of space - a different description of what space is - compared to  the spaces of matter within the not able to be of real spaces (like you and I).

The `interactions' of these fundamental `concepts';which literally figure into our perceptions of real - produce this incredibly stable reality we seem to experience. Which we also know now due to science advances - breaks down as we get into smaller and smaller units. Things as we know - are NOT solid - but are comprised of MUCH MORE SPACE than `solid'. And, `time' breaks down in much the same way.

Finally, the man who wrote The End Of Time - Julian Barbour - suggests something along these lines as far as how reality gets from one `moment of space' to the next `moment of space' -- and that being that reality `follows a path of least resistence' that involves `picking the next moment' based on the criteria of the `best matching space with the least intrinsic difference'.

Lastly, the permutations of all this phenomenology when applied to imagination and memory and perception and consciousness are staggering. I look forward to all TCI's writers opinions on the matter and our reader base too.

The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics

http:// whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com

http://theheavystuff.com/?cat=5

SP - 7 Phillips Tackles The Hawking Statement About Creation - God Linkage

First, where else on the internet can you find ON ONE WEBSITE - paranormalish bloggers writing on ONE subject ALL AT THE SAME TIME? Only on TCI as far as I know. The experiment continues; and, before my response - let me say that my response will be independent - and that I haven't read my writers previous offerings (except BD's - and that was days ago) yet - to preserve my own independent approach to this seed post `hot story' about Hawking's statement in the past week or so. So, here goes.

Since we are talking about creation - isn't EVERY second created? Are we - Hawking - really talking about `our universe' or the `real beginning' of `something'? Aren't we really to be considering how a phenomenology might come into being as much as anything? Aren't we really talking about the `potential to be' - a prior - period?

Certainly, we can't be talking about the `religious' Gods - that mankind has created - can we? WE, a race of beings living on a planet that didn't even exist, we are told, until roughly 8+ billion years after `the beginning of time'? A GOD that `resembles humans' we have been told to believe? Sounds just a bit like imagination at play IMO.

God, would be MUCH bigger in every manner than mankind could imagine - and almost certainly would look no more like mankind than looking like any other item that would exist - living or `dead' - `spirit' or `material'. Indeed, if one were strictly to `look' for God - and the concept that would represent such - especially the concept that would represent the `beginning of God' - one could only look to the Now of the Past.

The first Now.

A none existent `potential' - actualized. (And I don't mean the Big Bang.) A phenomenology structure began actualization.

While a phenomenology structure can imply `ethics' and even `morals' - as Existentialism claims - those are mankind ascribed to a blank phenomenology devoid of such IMO - but - a phenomenology not devoid of meaning or definition of what the phenomenology structure IS - is what I believe.

IS - a sum of zero - of negating representations - BEING - NOW.

Representations that we can - roughly - put into human words - as several of the early phenomenology thinkers such as Edmund Husserl have done. Thoughts, really, IMO, that could be ANY humans thoughts - back to the time of thinking humans - they are so fundamental. And, they are that way because they represent the concepts of time-space-and consciousness.

Could something as fundamental as Phenomenology Structure Establishing - BE GOD? ----- If first actions, or events matter - yes.

IMO, - (my Phillips Phenomenology) - `spaces' (all things represented as matter) - have one of the two `negating' representations - as part of it most fundamental `meaning' of being a `space'. To me, the ISness of `spaces' is `not-able-to-be'. (counted once). `Things' occur once - which gives them their realness - for that instant. This ISness, occurs, ONLY within the space itself.

Different `things' have their OWN unique `now-space' - that is NOT (timewise) shared with other spaces - except as `it' `runs off' of the `structure'. (We are `represented' by our lights bounce to `other things' that can perceive us. However, be clear about this, our light image of our now - the representation of us - has already occurred and takes `time' to travel to the perception field of another - our light IS the `set' and determined' PAST.

This Now-Past - is what I call the `Not-Able-To-Not-Be' - the set reality we `see' of the external perception structure. This shared reality of `neighboring spaces' - is what we call real. This is where part of our consciousness lies and where we need to direct our attention for survival.

Now, what NEGATES - the above? ----- The `time' concept - the `able- to- not- be' concept. `Something' that isn't `everything' - something - `that could occur again'! And, with that - the initial structure is set. And, knowledge (an event physics) would grow with a structure.

Perception FROM spaces - can make `sense' of the data - giving some advantage (perhaps) to `living spaces'. (One of my favorite thoughts is - if man can be considered nothing more than a collection of electrons, etc - show me which electrons are alive and which ones aren't.)

So, ultimately, - my comment is - there would be structure before creation `of the universe' (I'm assuming he is only referring to the observable portion - a minor amount of the total) - that defined what characteristics that things-spaces would BE.

Now, is that existence before creation thing God? --- my answer is above - and open to your interpretation. (However, I must render that it is possible that the reality we exist within could be an `artificial' creation.)