acw --- wis......@cyber ( 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

     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

     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.


acw --- wis......@cyber ( wrote:
>Class is a formless unsubstantial substance.

>It is a no thing.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty

Sat Dec 16 20:50:47 EST 2006