DEFINITION OF THING AND NO THING acw --- wis......@cyber (wisdom@cyberstation.net) wrote: >Class is a formless unsubstantial substance. >It is a no thing. You have a different definition of 'thing' than I do. My definitions: A thing is anything that has qualities. A no thing is anything that is qualityless. You also have 'substance' defined to mean multidimensional, leaving out the possibility of dimensionless substance. The AllThatIs is quite substatial, even though all of its apparent dimensional qualities are illusions of no actual substance. When we watch a movie of a car chase, the apparent substance is metal and pavement. The actual substance is none of that, but is silver screen and light projector with film running through it. What is real to the movie goer and what is actual are two different things. Dreams are as valuable as the dreamer thinks what is real is actual. Defining substance to refer only to illusions of dimensionality, leads to great confusion, as people come to think of themselves as nothing and the dream as everything. There are implants a plenty to follow that path. "You are nothing, everything you see is something!" "You do not exist, everything you see is all that exists!" "Spirit is not real, only matter, energy, space and time are real!" The truth is the exact opposite, you are the only something there is, and all the stuff you see out there is nothing, pretty lights glowing in the substance of yourself. The external world is a glow in the dark tatoo on your spirit. People are free to define words however they please, and communication can take place, but if in the process of defining a word one defines out of existence one of that word's possible referents, and magnifies the importance of many of its less significant referents, one does a disservice to the world at large, because now they have no way of talking about what is actual. For example if what is actual is that which is dimensional, then there are no words for talking about that which is not dimensional. Calling non dimensional things, no things, leads to contradictions in communications and eventually Godel Jails, where in one has engaged in one too many philosophical black holes due to word matrix mis definitions. That said, your description of Class as dimensionaless is correct. Calling it a nothing however will run you into regretable trouble down the road. Might as well call a thetan a nothing and the AllThatIs a nothing. The correct way to descriminate between 'physical somethings' and 'spiritual somethings' is to use 'multi dimensional' and 'non dimensional', dimensionality is there first and most primary difference. And no, infinite dimensionality is not the same thing as zero dimensionality. Infinite dimensionality is just more illusion like 3 or 4 dimensionality. I would recommend using 'something' to refer to those things which are, and leave 'nothing' to refer to those things which aren't, true nothings such as Roland's intelligence. Homer acw --- wis......@cyber (wisdom@cyberstation.net) wrote: >Class is a formless unsubstantial substance. >It is a no thing. >A. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com Sat Dec 16 20:50:47 EST 2006