The invisible (spiritual) world is of higher frequency than this visible (physical) world, just as there are light rays that are visible and light ray frequencies that human (and various) animals cannot see. From that invisible world, the world of "cause" we get the visible world of "effect". Yet, even this world of effect there are undeniable principles of existence that are universally true, from the smallest energy particles to the largest constellations in the vast universe. And One Source is behind it all, the source of the consistent Principle of life itself: God/Yahweh/Allah/the Great Original Mind & Heart.//
This is the sort of explanation I personally would be quite uncomfortable with, except as metaphor. And when I decide it is a metaphor, I am right back where I started.
In other words, taken literally, the explanation has to be clearly explained and described. Do these high-frequency thingies therefore exist in the physical continuum, just at a "frequency" we don't get?
So if we pick up a kind of energy that's different from anything we've ever detected before, are we detecting God's thoughts, or perhaps orders, or prayers as they are translated? This is my trouble with describing one's beliefs using the "clothes" of physical sciences: if it's a literal assertion, first of all you must be ready to explain these frequencies in the observable (yet not yet observed) universe.
If anything, I've come to realize language itself is a metaphorical exercise, as our concept is not the thing in itself, and the map (of language) is not the land (of the world as we find it.)
I too come up with such metaphors, and I realize I can't trade in them between believer and non-believer (or "other"-believer.)
So when I put aside such metaphors I find myself aware that I sometimes catch a sideways glance, an inkling, the "stench" of enlightenment as some call it. I know my metaphors, and my models, and my words, and I know that which can be known and cannot be known by which means (which is not to say I know everything in each of these "categories.")
So for you, Fog, I have to say... well, as a metaphor, okay. I'm down with the "other frequencies." But it's not what it says it is. If you were to tell me the "invisible" world were in a cloud above my head, and I could not fly, it would be the same. But when humans got flight and then spaceflight, that place went away. I suppose we may be able to say that these frequencies are undetectable -- just invisible in another way -- and that is fine too. But I'm not sure the metaphor of frequencies is really any more than that, a metaphor. This is the difficulty of the ineffable: there is always someone trying to eff it. So if we speak in the parlance of the physical universe, we will find ourselves consistently effed out of existence again. In the end it's these metaphors themselves that must go. And if we have nothing left but a feeling at the end of all that, that is fine: we lose nothing but the ability to universalize that feeling (or if you like, that delusion.) To lose that ability is to lose nothing but ego and perhaps a fight on a bulletin board.
This will drive you (Wildo) nuts. Frankly, I know better than to believe in witches and goblins. I do not know better than to believe in an animating principle or a universal awareness (to use very fuzzy terms, so you don't go trying to test and disprove them.) I am quite aware of the name of the game here, vis., the name. I name it, we can fight about it. I leave it unnamed, we don't. We can't. But beyond that, I name it, and I've lied about it; if in fact what I am expressing is the oneness of all, the subdivisions inherent in linguistic assertions or mathematical ones are inherently inapplicable.
Can one still say
je ne sais quois? That is what we as people of science,
or religious people, should be saying all the bloody time, if you think about it.... until nous savons quois, at which point
je ne sais quois moves again; again with the gaps.
But here is what you (Wildo) miss: An acknowledgment that God is one and all partakes of God, is not the same thing as just sticking God anywhere scientific knowledge hasn't reached.
The nature of subjectivity is such that we have no "objective" indication of whether there is a subjective "All", just as there is no way to distinguish a subjective self in another. Indeed, we simply assume for the sake of simplicity that each of us is a metaphor for the others. That is to say, I assume there is a "me" in you because you seem to make the noises a conscious being makes. The fact is I only have "objective" proof of my own reality, and the proof is entirely subjective to the point of solipsism (in that you may be a bot, a convenient internet explanation of the phenomenon. Or in real life, you may be one of six billion conveniently placed automata I call the human race, although my own internal subjective reality is the only one I have evidence for. We can go all cartesian, but this is pretty much inescapable until you escape subjective consciousness through some unconvincing trick of behaviorism which in any event, you don't really believe inasmuch as there is still a you to believe it or not believe it.) At the point of cartesian solipsism, we've decided that there is objective proof of the subjective and nothing else. And then of course old Renee builds it all back up again from ground zero, God and all.
So if I am willing to grant Fog and Wildo a subjective existence, with no proof but metaphor, I can quite easily see that another subjectivity may well exist that similarly I have no proof for.
Now, once again, treating subjectivity as an objective phenomenon, I have the greatest difficulty though I have considered it at length, in understanding how a certain set of phenomena acting as stimulus and reacted to in response, by a mindless biochemical conglomerate (however organized,) can become something so simple as a cat (or if I'm simply anthropomorphizing, we'll say a human being.)
However, as I've mentioned, I am open to an explanation of the coming-into-being of subjective existence.
I may take the position that any Truth we find - whether it's how electrons behave, or whether it's how leaves grow, or whatever - we've simply partaken in "naming", that is, description via our various languages, mathematical included. In so naming these phenomena, and their component phenomena, we have organized bits of reality in such a way that we can learn to manipulate them (what we use to call magic, and now call technology.) So we end up with some bioengineered corn, or the interwebs and the computer machine. Inasmuch as this naming is just a subdivision of what is and recombining as we desire, I've done nothing much through technology, and I've proven nothing much in terms of the nature of reality. I have shown only that all that is can be named and organized in such-and-such a way.
But I know nothing about its nature in the subjective sense, its "I". It may have no subjective existence; although it does not look conscious, it may all
be conscious, in some sense. It may all, from the most mundane particle in the plastic case of your computer machine to the bits and pieces you call you, be part of another consciousness.
And there is no objective reason to believe that it is, or that it is not. However, I have the same problem as regards you and fog.
So I take the leap of faith, and you (Wildo) embrace the void. Neither is a particularly laudable response, although neither is second-best.
I'll not hold onto these unprovable metaphors, but I'll not be told by another trader in metaphors (no insult there, Wildo, we all do it,) that my refusal to accept competing metaphors establishes his metaphor as supreme.
These words of ours are metaphors, my friends, and these worlds of ours are models. The three of us are all looking for different things on the level of metaphor, and the same thing when you come right down to it.
Fog wants it to be the truth of a much more concrete idea of God than I am comfortable with, and you want it to be the truth of only that which can be objectively established. I don't know which I am closer to, were we to do a "lineup." But strip away the various models, and you want God or I want to be free of Him, depending on which of us is examining the other.
Again, wherever I look I find us all insisting on our miniature truths being superior to one anothers'. We all stipulate there is more to it than our miniature truths, and that we are looking for it.
Now in that the Truth, capital T, is not established to have consciousness of its own, Wildo's scientific inquiry/curiosity is all we have. That is all right, even if it renders Fog and I delusional, I mean beyond the way Fog has established himself delusional next door (sorry couldn't resist.)
And to the extent that the Truth, capital T, is not established
not to have said consciousness, this maddening mysticism of ours is all we have. This too is all right; the
fou is on the other foot. Though even given that Fog and I would in this case have blundered onto said awareness, we are bound to understand it through the metaphor machine of the mind, and do not know the Truth of it other than through direct experience. And then we attempt to describe it and talk about its rules as if we know. I simultaneously reject this, and at some level must engage in it.
Now then, Wildo has a habit of insisting on the non-existence of said consciousness until proof is offered.
But Wildo - to whom are you insisting this? Yourself?
It is what it is, or
tathagatha, as the Buddhists say. Talk to me.
I'm here. (Swear to God).
PFnV
