Whoops - In my posting last night, when I was mentioning all the religions and spiritual traditions around the world whose core doctrines believe that our dimension is spiritual in nature, I forgot to mention the Islamic Sufis. My apologies!
Since the concept of 'dimension' appears to be crucial to your argument, I would be grateful if you would specify the definition of the term that you intend to convey to your readers. Thanks.
Christian Scientists are apparently in the category that I mentioned, namely Mystical Christians. As far as any other groups out there who are barely a blip on the map compared to the size of the ones that I mentioned are concerned either are or were in their heyday, I must give a hearty salute to the Theosophical Society - - - - - and with that I hope we can stay more on the main topic.
What is a dimension? - - - - - An excellent question!
To quote from the book, a dimension of existence, or more simply, a dimension, is some type of structure, either tangible or intangible, which acts as an environment - a realm - within the boundaries of which exists some unique essence. It is dimensions of existence that we look for first in the book, because these dimensions must exist before anything in particular can be expressed within their boundaries.
Examples of HYPOTHETICAL TANGIBLE dimensions which we might find logic stipulating are capable of existing are 1) the entirety of a tangible universe, consisting of either three directions of space (height, width, and depth) as we are familiar with, or as string theorists hypothesize, ten directions of space, and 2) a tangible multiverse, consisting of a grouping of adjacent, possibly interacting universes, as membrane theorists hypothesize.
Examples of HYPOTHETICAL INTANGIBLE DIMENSIONS OF EXISTENCE include 1) a dimension consisting in its entirety of an intangible Deity dreaming one or more universes into a spiritual existence within Its intangible imagination, and 2) an intangible, spiritual dimension containing within it a spiritual Deity and all that this Deity could create "outside" Itself within this dimension.
Anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with the tenets of the book a bit more, and to read several interesting topics in the set-up, can do so by going to where the book is sold, at b-dproductions.com and clicking on "read the first 24 pages" on the "book page."
"Greatest show on Earth - heard that one before."
I've been to many great shows, and a few that claimed to be but weren't. When all is said and done, like any true philosopher, I run like a greedy child to anything claiming to be philosophical candy. And I run to the biggest first.
When it comes to the Great Shows, Am I to assume that you take great pride in having stayed at home and missed them all?
Final comment - don't worry, if the book is what it claims to be, you'll be hearing about it eventually from other sources.
Final, final comment - if you really meant what you said, you won't be reading this, because you won't be coming back to "waste" any more of your time in this particular forum. And if you are reading this - "Gotchya! Welcome back!"
I don't miss anything by staying home; I put on a pretty mean show myself.
Don't mind me anyway, I'm just being grumpy. I prefer my philosophy in the humble-speaks-for-itself flavor, rather than the all-singing-all-dancing flavor (if you expect nothing then anything you get is a pleasant surprise, and never a disappointment).
It starts when you read the book - duh!
Why anyone would want to chime in on this forum who HASN'T read the book baffles me. If you have comments on me or questions about the book, go to the site and read the first 24 pages or buy the book.
I still want to thank Ellen, who DID read the book, and seems to be quite delighted by it, for starting this forum on the book, but until people who have read the book start posting comments or informed questions, this forum is going to remain rather boring - except for the clues I'll post over the next several weeks for those interested in a quite delightful philosophical adventure.
By the way. Psychonaut and Nikolai - you are certainly not alone - you are in the majority of about 99.999% of those out there who've run across one of my ads. The book is selling very poorly, because, like you everyone, who have all heard the phase "If anyone tells you they have the answers, don't listen - turn and run away," are playing the odds, which in the overall picture is a wise thing to do, and not believing the claims in the ad.
But, what's a bloke to do who has stumbled onto something that so many people say they wish they knew, but that they were "sure" wasn't possible to find? I already said it wasn't hard - just lucky - lateral thinking. I knew that the vast majority of folks wouldn't believe me, but I'm damned well going to put it out there for the few who are willing to gamble a few bucks to hit the jackpot, or in other words, "fools" like me. It's only the fool in us who will enter the dark, where the wizard in us can find the prize.
In a few more days, I'll post the next step in discovering the simple answer to what we are and why we exist - for those several of you out there (I hope) who are interested in such an endeavor.
All your posts have, so far, explained at some length how, at some unspecified point in the future, you are going to tell us an answer to a question that we wondered about as children. Why don't you just tell us now?
If everybody insisted on preceding every one of their ideas with 10+ posts of spam over several threads, and over at least two weeks, including accompanying games to play and preliminary websites to consult, this forum would soon become pretty clogged up.
Spit it out man and let's start the conversation...
You mean thread, and not forum.
The reason why I'm continuing to read it is because I normally read every post made in this forum, for completion's sake.
I've read the 24 pages now and thoroughly enjoyed them. But I need to discuss them because much of it sounds like Berkelyan idealism to me. Not that that's a bad thing, only that it doesn't seem like the novel solution as promised.
I'm glad you enjoyed the first 24 pages - but I'll not comment on what this seems to be related to. Read the book to find out what it itself says, and you can make more informed comments that I will be more capable of - frankly, understanding. If you are going to bring up other philosophers, you are going to jump over my head real fast. My forte does not lie in knowing what everyone else said who didn't discover what I have. I'm not up on which philosopher said what to whom over the the past three thousand years. My forte lies in asking the same simple question I suspect all modern philosophical children start out asking - "How does a tangible universe arise in the first place, from nothing?" - and driving ahead with simple logic, past what stopped me and everyone else as seemingly a paradox - "It can't logically arise from nothing, but apparently it did!" - when I asked the same question as a ten year old, and at 40, simply following where logic led me.
If you reread my posting about the "game" I intend to play here, you'll see that the game is simply to have something interesting - very interesting - to do on this site until someone chimes in - besides Ellen, who started this forum - who's actually read the book. It seems to me that this is what this site, under "book club," should be about - people chatting with each other about what they got out of the book, including, perhaps, how it relates to other philosophers or philosophical movements, and me answering questions people may have about something they've already read to completion.
Since no one but Ellen has read the book yet, I decided to offer the line of deductions which led me to the primary conclusions the book makes, one posted every week, to allow those who like to figure things out for themselves the chance to deduce what I came up with. But, as I said, I'm not going to list the last step. No way am I going to give the answer away. For a pittence, buy the book!
If you are going to bring up other philosophers, you are going to jump over my head real fast. My forte does not lie in knowing what everyone else said who didn't discover what I have. I'm not up on which philosopher said what to whom over the the past three thousand years. My forte lies in asking the same simple question I suspect all modern philosophical children start out asking - "How does a tangible universe arise in the first place, from nothing?"
Don't you think it might be a good idea to read what other philosophers have to say about this?
