The realities of the spirit world

First of all, with all the unknowns surrounding metaphysics, which humans have forever struggled with understanding, that should be saying something. While everyone subscribing to the existence of the spirit world would agree there is a greater intelligence, but of an unknown quantity, it obviously follows there must also be another reality out there. Within realities as bizarre as a spirit world, we should realize the mentality of the spirit world would also have to be quite different. And, if the spirit world is intellectually superior, as seems the case since we have virtually no knowledge of metaphysics, then that reality would be more ‘real’ than ours. Moreover, it would take a superior logic to function effectively in that environment. In other words, realities determine the appropriate type of mental processing necessary to function effectively, not the other way around. It is not logical the world would conform to how it is envisioned except for someone into the confusing concepts of realism, nominalism or conceptualism. A single logical disposition does not fit all circumstances and must be adjusted accordingly. Somewhat similar would be adjusting for the differences between living in Cleveland or Memphis, however subtle, or being an investment banker versus being a ranch hand in Texas, however great. The differences between the physical and ethereal are vastly greater however, indescribably separated yet indescribably close. Also, since attitudes are the steering mechanism for one’s logical disposition and since attitudes are subservient to moods, moods are largely in charge of that territory.

In short, there is another mentality within the spirit world that scientists should recognize as existing. They need to look at metaphysics in a different way, not as if the vestiges of creation, an ancient process once set in motion and left unattended, abandoned. Metaphysics is active, alive and thus the mentality I’m talking about. The manner in which the spirit world is logically driven may not resemble our idea of logic, not even remotely, but that doesn’t testify that it must therefore be illogical. However, contrary to popular belief, metaphysics, at least some aspects, is actually fathomable after all, but it isn’t any easy task and it takes a quite a commitment. I explained how to go about this and the commitment necessary in my book STD LEX .

The evolutionists would still doubt the notion of a supreme mentality however. After all, they don’t even subscribe to Divine Creation, so naturally a pervasive superior mentality wouldn’t fit into their model of how the universe and life began. Well, I’m not a preacher but I should say this… the evolutionists should consider, by the very fact so many unanswered questions remain concerning life itself, something must be lacking within scientific logic. I suggest it is largely a matter of their established parameters because from the very beginning, the spirit world was excluded. And, it would seem logical that any self-respecting, worthwhile logical disposition should have been able to figure out metaphysics after 2,500 years. That's not to say metaphysics was unknown 2,500 years ago, it's just that science choose not to include that knowledge. That's why ancient wisdom still has a popular appeal. Actually, this amounts to merely convincing science because the Creationists, while perhaps unable to fathom the spirit world, they know enough to be convinced it exists.

Scientific shortcomings

Let’s take a quick look at the shortcomings of science… First of all, scientists cannot even explain electricity yet, its basic nature. They have no idea what the ‘spark of life’ is, much less the associated phenomena. In short, about all scientists have been able to do is explain the physical world and, when we’re not looking, brush the unexplainable aside... because unanswered questions assault their credibility. Worse, they lead us astray by trying to explain transcendental phenomena scientifically and thus are forcing a fit, as if jamming a round peg into a square hole, entrenching their erroneous conclusions into the mindset of civilization. Science has not the tools or mentality to tackle such questions and hence, erroneous conclusions are left to stand, and they’ll stand for centuries. The arrogance of most scientists would allow this rather than look beyond their established premises or outside their circles for answers. As to these unanswered questions I earlier referred to, answers aren’t answers unless they are correct answers.

Putting things in perspective, a few centuries back we had religions telling us what to think… that the earth was the center of the universe and the world was flat. It was heresy to state it differently. Today, it is almost the same thing, scientists might as well be wearing priestly robes. As it was with the priesthood, unless you’re a fellow scientist, a layman’s point-of-view has no merit. When one attempts to suggest something different to their clique it is automatically dismissed, deemed unworthy for even a millisecond of consideration. That's especially true if you don't use their terminology, their lingo.

It is astonishing to me that a superior mentality, effectively juxtapositional to our own since it occupies the same space and surrounds us, has not been recognized. It is odd they can hypothesize on an invisible top quark or tachyon but the logic of an overriding and supreme mentality, pervasive and ever-present, practically sitting on one’s shoulders, apparently never occurred to them. If science claims to be efficiently ascertaining facts in a systemized manner, it should have been obvious long ago certain things were just not being explained scientifically. A true scientist would have concluded their system was lacking and would have sought the reason for its failures which translates into fundamental inadequacies. He would have asked himself “why can’t we comprehend metaphysics?” and, after 2,500 years, that should have told him the scientific frame-of-mind was inadequate for the job. Of course, like everyone else including me (for decades), assumed it required an intelligence much higher than  man was allotted. It didn’t dawn of me for quite some time that it wasn’t a matter of intelligence but rather one’s frame-of- mind, thus the differing logic as a result… and ultimately, the way to find the truth.

At various times we’ve all experienced how different moods can affect our frame-of-mind and often, to some degree, how that affects our reasoning. That by itself should demonstrate that, at certain times, a different mentality can exist. Doesn’t any mood-induced logic always seem sound at the time? Of course moods usually only induce subtle changes, not nearly as drastic as necessary to think spiritually, or I should say, to think in the spiritual dimension.

These various frames-of-mind that exist can be demonstrated by those differences within each and every classification of animal phyla, but to a lesser degree between species of the same Genus. Each has a different way of perceiving things, and their frame-of-mind, while varying drastically in almost all cases, still manages to exist and thrive. Doesn’t that suggest a mentality can be vastly different and still be effective? Doesn’t that say logical reasoning comes in many forms? Animals may seem stupid beasts to many but contraire, they merely perceive things differently and their modus operandi reflects that harmoniously. What may seem important to us may hold no importance to them. They couldn’t care less about a Corvette or Mercedes. Their life,
in effect, revolves around different circumstances than ours and yet to them and the Creator, still perfectly sound. Their survival has proven it as sound. We cannot say, just because we have the ability to construct things, etc., etc., that overall it is a superior mentality, or that our brand of reasoning is. Because many of the things we construct have a negative side and can be deadly, it could be said that by not living more in harmony with nature, like animals do, but instead by altering it… we’ve dooming our species. Not too smart, but at this stage, with our population, it's too late to drastically change our ways.

Continued....