A bit on conceptualizing the intangible and explaining the unseen to sceptics and oth

[Miss Hepburn]

We don't see enough of you around here NoOne.

[Redchic12]

Very interested comments.

I too can’t see them but I can definitely feel them.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

... what do you suppose the end results must be, if I were to actually succeed in this?

I sorta saw this to. I've always felt it has always been to understand more. At some level we feel it both complete and incomplete. I think we want to understand the incomplete to understand. It brings balance and we understand more and more both in what was said and not said. We're here to learn. For instance, not everyone (spirit) wants the same framework and we are to understand why. The end is seeing everything, enlightenment. We are exploring, simply enjoy it. We are looking to connect all the dots.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Redchic12

I too can’t see them but I can definitely feel them.

Nicely said, same here. But actually if we feel them, we know them. Using heart. It is all information.

[Redchic12]

Busby Luuuuuv your comments and I’ve thought along those lines many times and still do occasionally. Who knows what the hell is going on ha ha

Lemex. Unfortunately the ones I have felt mostly, way back, are the not so good ones. I’ve had a few of good ones tho.

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by NoOne

is as real as the blood coursing through our veins and the air filling our lungs with each breath.

You mean like God, aliens, soap stars and a host of other things? The intention here is not to belittle how you feel about those things, but I guessed that since you asked the question you're looking for answers. And by the way, I have an actual qualification in mediumship after having gone through a training course and assessment.

The problem is that people can claim they have all kinds of abilities that in the end turns out to be a load of bunkum. Science needs the process of going through essentially a verification with some kind of empirical evidence and a methodology that can be repeated to get the same results. Rupert Sheldrake understands this, hence his work with his morphogenic resonance fields. He has his theories and ideas but then he likely understands that science is littered with nutty professors with equally nutty claims. A bunch of people conceptualising the unseen ain't it, and there's a huge difference between what is real and what is real to a person - what is real to you may not be real to anyone else if they don't have the faculties to sense it. By the same token there are things that will be real to me but not you and vice versa.

You talk about ignorance but, with respect, how much do you know about your "emotional body?" Do you know about the processes that create your emotions and how they are subsequently manifest as emotions? You don't have an emotional body, you have emotions that are created in response to what you perceive after an event of some kind. That unconscious process has more to do with the creation of your reality than all the Spiritual knowledge you possess.

There's a much wider, deeper, bigger reality at play here. What you're tapping into is a deeper understanding - by that I mean beyond what is often discussed in these forums - about how reality is created.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by TattieHowker

You talk about ignorance but, with respect, how much do you know about your "emotional body?" Do you know about the processes that create your emotions and how they are subsequently manifest as emotions? You don't have an emotional body, you have emotions that are created in response to what you perceive after an event of some kind.

And with respect, how do you know that we do not have an emotional body?

Peace

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by iamthat

And with respect, how do you know that we do not have an emotional body?

Peace

With respect, what makes you think we have?

But to answer your question, emotions are responses to external stimuli. For the sake of simplicity. You see something sad on the TV and you cry, someone rips you off and you get angry.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by TattieHowker

But to answer your question, emotions are responses to external stimuli. For the sake of simplicity. You see something sad on the TV and you cry, someone rips you off and you get angry.

These examples do not negate the possibility of having an emotional body where emotional responses are experienced.

Of course, this depends on our perspective of the nature of a human being. Is the human just a physical form? Or does a human have other more subtle bodies in addition to the dense physical?

Peace

[TattieHowker]

Originally Posted by iamthat

These examples do not negate the possibility of having an emotional body where emotional responses are experienced.

It's even more possible that we don't have other 'bodies', subtle or otherwise. Emotions don't come from a 'body'.