Ok, I am guessing we will not be able find a common source for terminology. I want something that offers words and what they mean. You want something that represents the ideas you ascribe to it, that only has the connotations you want, and that doesn't use common definitions. I can't suggest an alternative because I still really don't know what you mean. That was why I was requesting we use things like a dictionary and encyclopedia. Since there as an unwillingness to compromise on both sides with this one, we should probably just skip it. God would be a poor word since it is emotionally charged for some people, it has many different connotations, and has many different meanings and definitions. Perhaps that illusiveness of meaning is why it almost fits for you. Just to understand each other using that term we would have to agree on a meaning and disregard the others. That is why I use much simpler words. (It seems you used it...sorry to say it didn't clear anything up for the previously stated reasons).
Ok, so just to clear it up, I didn't misunderstand? You were just setting the stage, so to speak, before explaining problems with flirting and human courtship and other such stuff?
Maybe I have a different understanding of flirting than you. Since we can't agree on a source for the meaning of words, we won't know. Flirting, to me, is very much like a game, or how children play. I don't see people getting upset when they find out that those aren't any more serious than they are. If someone feels flirting is dishonest, it is they who are dishonest, not others. You can't throw out the rules of a social group and not expect consequences (I do this often in relatively unimportant ways, and frequently pay for it).
I think I've just isolated where we are getting confused with each others terminology. From that sentence you seem to imply that any existence at all falls under the category 'physical'. Where my category for physical is only the vibrational density of consciousness that is realized as a chair, a smell, a meat bag. To me there are many vibrational states of being, with the physical simply being the most dense.
I don't mean just things that can be sensed with our senses, and extensions to them in the form of tools. I also include other things that are not able to be sensed themselves.
But I would have to ask what is 'real' - what parameters would qualify something as real?
As I mentioned, my beliefs are quite flexible, so what fits into them is hard to pin down. One way I can explain what is real is everything. Another I like is this title:
I personally don't believe that the complete absence of all, consciousness included, is even possible. For me the absence of all is simply the absence of form.
There may be more than this, but I really don't feel like going through all posts looking for it.
Truth is that out of which all possibilities arise, all existence is realized, all questions, all challenges.
Does this mean that you think all things are possible (I seem to recall something like that being said)? If so, your belief and statement canceled itself out. If all things exist, nothing exists.
Doesn't form imply it is physical in the most basic and widely understood meaning of the word?
To me there is no such thing as a void in which consciousness isn't present. To me consciousness is all there is and every thought form, or physical manifestation exists within it as condensed or focused consciousness.
Isn't it possible that you are a brain in a jar, then? This seems a very limiting view.
If the universe were annihilated
This, and the rest of the sentence, depends on your understanding of the universe and annihilation. Annihilation of the universe in the sense of destroying it would not remove it, but simply be the universe doing what it already does.
there wouldn't be nothing as you call it,
Again, this is why we need a shared pool of terms and definitions. I was responding to your use of "nothingness" which means to me nonexistence. "Nothing" would be, essentially, no thing, or the absence of a thing. Annihilation of the universe would not result in nothing, as there would still be energy, matter, etc.
but pure formless consciousness.
Since I don't understand your definition I can't really comment on this much. Since I don't know how the universe as a whole works, as I am only a part of it, I don't know if as a whole it is a consciousness, or merely contains many.
When you've discovered another way, I would be eager to hear about it
Doing so myself is unlikely, as I may not have the resources.
I dunno. You asked, I gave a suggestion.
How so? Give me at least one example of a perspective that isn't relative?
Bah! I think you missed what I was getting at here. Go back and look at recent responses to my posts, and mine to those, and it might help you out. I feel not right explaining that. Also, the smiley...
I must just add that it's been a pleasure being able to make these long posts as I've been on a sort of holiday the last 3 days, but it is drawing to an end.
I wouldn't use the word pleasure for I must just add that it's been a pleasure being able to make these long posts as I've been on a sort of holiday the last 3 days, but it is drawing to an end.how I felt, but don't think I mean to be negative. I was attempting to understand what you mean and share a little of what I think.
Do not be alarmed if I don't reply, or if I do and it is very brief.
No problem. Short responses are better for me anyway, unless we communicate in real time.
Physical necessities dictate.
HA! SEE!
this thread has gone well beyond a caring corner, and is now just wall of text and brony stuffs
I think the wall of text posts will die down now.