Return Home
It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:08 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:12 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:44 pm
Posts: 16
Location: United Kingdom
FWAU ... this is precisely what I was talking about (the use of acronyms, not the actual meaning). I was speaking generally although you are correct - I have not yet read the book. There are a couple of reasons for that - one being that the book is out of stock on Amazon.co.uk at the moment. Another is the daunting prospect of reading 800 pages of non-fiction. I am a very slow reader and already have several on my shelf awaiting their turn.

I hope that doesn't disqualify me from asking further questions here but I will understand if you all consider this to be a forum for those who have actually studied the material.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:24 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Yes there is an issue I know as "alphabet soup" in many areas, specific to each, that requires illumination for any sort of understanding/communication to occur with those outside that contextual world. In the scholarly realm the rule is use the spelled out term the first time in an article, put the acronym behind it in parenthesis, then just the acronym is used thereafter. Perhaps that would help here as well?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:46 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:44 pm
Posts: 16
Location: United Kingdom
Nice of you to offer a solution, Bette, but I think it is probably only an issue for newbies such as I. I can't reasonably expect those of you who are "in-the-know" to modify your posts to accomodate the few who have yet to read the books.

I am aware of the meaning of some of the acronyms, by the way. My point was more general in nature - my little pet gripe about substituting initial letters for a decent descriptive phrase. Even the string of jargonese that gets reduced to an acronym is often impenetrable.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:59 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Nice of you to offer a solution, Bette, but I think it is probably only an issue for newbies such as I. I can't reasonably expect those of you who are "in-the-know" to modify your posts to accomodate the few who have yet to read the books.
Yes, you can reasonably expect that, just as it can be reasonably expected that there will always be those requiring that data.
Quote:
I am aware of the meaning of some of the acronyms, by the way. My point was more general in nature - my little pet gripe about substituting initial letters for a decent descriptive phrase. Even the string of jargonese that gets reduced to an acronym is often impenetrable.
Words are funny, long strings of them can be funnier yet. I enjoy placing words for specific meaning, and then seeing if someone else gets the same meaning from it as I'd intended. I enjoy the freedom of being allowed that pleasure, such as I can do here in this forum. You will find many posts here concerning the trouble with communicating across consciousness space...and communicating with words. I am working/thinking about tags, a concept being used for search engines now. I think each of our experiences with any thing tags that thing with meanings that are specific to us, that thing, and the tags, but that be found by others by searchng tags other's have put to things out there in the big computer database. The big computer database is something I have tagged with Plato and the world of ideal forms, as an example. I often consider tags as a possible way to let people find concepts here rather than just search terms. There is a link with a list of acronyms here I believe, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2868&hilit=acronyms.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:04 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
Quote:
Nice of you to offer a solution, Bette, but I think it is probably only an issue for newbies such as I. I can't reasonably expect those of you who are "in-the-know" to modify your posts to accomodate the few who have yet to read the books.

I am aware of the meaning of some of the acronyms, by the way. My point was more general in nature - my little pet gripe about substituting initial letters for a decent descriptive phrase. Even the string of jargonese that gets reduced to an acronym is often impenetrable.
It's laziness. Who wants to type out Physical Material Reality (PMR) all the time? Forums do not equate to scholarly script.

kamarling, you just made me think about a feature the forum needs.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:10 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
What kind of feature Roland?
Love
Bette (and yes if anyone is wondering, I have considered shortening this to LB or making it my automatic signature, but decided no)

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:01 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
Quote:
What kind of feature Roland?
Love
Bette (and yes if anyone is wondering, I have considered shortening this to LB or making it my automatic signature, but decided no)
A photo section for the hottest MBTOE Babes. (Ha! Gotcha)

Actually, it might be good to have a terms index/appendix of some sort for all of the new bloods and the visitors checking things out. A lot of acronyms and terminology gets tossed around in the forums.

And, btw, shouldn't it be B.L.? =)


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
And, btw, shouldn't it be B.L.? =)
For, Be Love?
Love
Bette :)

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:26 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
Quote:
Quote:
And, btw, shouldn't it be B.L.? =)
For, Be Love?
Love
Bette :)
Right! Be-tte Love :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:49 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:44 pm
Posts: 16
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:

It's laziness. Who wants to type out Physical Material Reality (PMR) all the time? Forums do not equate to scholarly script.
I hope that this isn't a silly question, but isn't Physical Material a tautology? On reflection, I'm sure that Tom must have explained that in his books.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:52 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Quote:

It's laziness. Who wants to type out Physical Material Reality (PMR) all the time? Forums do not equate to scholarly script.
I hope that this isn't a silly question, but isn't Physical Material a tautology? On reflection, I'm sure that Tom must have explained that in his books.
I see the two together as redundancy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:49 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

It's laziness. Who wants to type out Physical Material Reality (PMR) all the time? Forums do not equate to scholarly script.
I hope that this isn't a silly question, but isn't Physical Material a tautology? On reflection, I'm sure that Tom must have explained that in his books.
I see the two together as redundancy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Love
Bette
I always thought it was "Physical Matter Reality"- in any case it doesn't much 'matter.' :)

My thinking was that "physical" describes the specific "kind" of "matter" that we experience in our reality system. In other words- that there is "matter" (other systems) which would not 'appear physical' to us in the normal sense. "Physical Matter Reality" points to a specific (I know its just metaphor) "vibration" of matter- i.e. it is dense, hard, seemingly solid (for the most part).. <--"Physical."

I should note that I used the term "physical-matter" in this context before coming across Tom's work- (and from a pretty strong background in Theosophy) so this is probably why I may be incorrect about the exact phrase he uses.. (Material, or Matter). Again- we all know it doesn't really 'matter' ( ;-) ) anyway, but for the sake of discussion...


Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:53 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:12 am
Posts: 288
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

It's laziness. Who wants to type out Physical Material Reality (PMR) all the time? Forums do not equate to scholarly script.
I hope that this isn't a silly question, but isn't Physical Material a tautology? On reflection, I'm sure that Tom must have explained that in his books.
I see the two together as redundancy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Love
Bette
Without going and digging out Monroe's books, I believe that Robert Monroe used two of the words as his term, and perhaps Tom built upon that usage within the context of his own experiences. But languages are like that, aren't they? In particular, the English language, a design by committees who never met because they were members of nations and ethnic groups scattered over a continent and 2500 yrs. One must learn to ignore these very common inconsistencies, redundancies, etc., especially English speakers, or go mad.

At any rate... yes, it is redundant. =)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Cole and Roland get the gold ring (figurative only) -- both are correct.

Bob used the terms "physical matter reality" and "non-physical mater reality" and for a long time I didn't like the terminology because I thought that it was redundant. Then I realized that he was trying to differentiate between two types of reality that both contained matter from the viewpoints of observers within their own reality frames. Recall that NPMR is a term we use to lump thousands of other reality frames into one big basket that is defined as "not us" - not our PMR - and that some of these frames have more constrained rule-sets that make their frame appear to their residents much like our frame appears to our residence. Some have less constrained rule-sets that still appear physical such as the way your dreams appear physical while you are dreaming. Physical mater is what our bodies are made of and what we trip over here in PMR, while nonphysical matter is what our bodies are made of and what we trip over when we visit other reality frames besides our own that appear non-physical to us from the "awake" viewpoint of our PMR.

The point of using this terminology is to use language that emphasizes that one reality frame is not matter while the other one (the one you are not in) is more like imaginary smoke. Both reality frames have an equal claim to being realities based on matter (actually virtual matter) -- and appear that way to their own residents. And both appear to be nonphysical to residents of the other. So, from the viewpoint of a local observer in each reality, the term "physical mater" appears redundant, but from the viewpoint of someone with a bigger picture view that encompasses multiple reality frames, using the terminology "physical matter" and "non-physical matter" is simply applying some language symmetry to equivalent descriptions from equivalent but different viewpoints when talking directly to just one viewpoint about the bigger picture. Also, this terminology is more helpful in achieving an accurate understanding than is simply always taking the viewpoint of one observer over the other -- a parochial little-picture belief-habit engrained in PMR thinking that I am trying to discourage in my readers - lest the habits of language lead us into the limiting cultural belief that we are the center of the one and only reality frame. From the belief that there is physical reality and nothing else comes the belief that the term "physical matter" is a hopelessly redundant tautology.

Your reality is defined by your beliefs and fears more than anything else.

In summary: There is only consciousness and data - reality is information: All matter is virtual and thus only exists from the point of view of a given consciousness absorbing a particular data stream. "Physical matter" refers to matter that appears physical to a particular observer, while "non-physical matter" refers to matter that appears nonphysical to the same observer)

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:26 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Thank you uncle Tom, you're a nice uncle. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited