The Fundamental Comparison of Waking Physics and Dream Physics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave36333

A diagnosis is not an anger issue. What do I have against Frank?. Nothing. Im diagnosing him as any normal human with compassion should.

100 different shrinks can have 100 different diagnosis. Im not a shrink but Ive seen many cases of this disorder and he is very similar.

It sounds like you, Sageous , has some sort of baseline anxiety problem. See how good Im getting at this?

---

No. I am not seeing how good you're getting at this; just the opposite, in fact.

Yes, Dave, by their tone alone your many posts about Frank on his various threads seem couched more in anger or disappointment than in responsible diagnosis.

No, I do not believe any competent psychiatrist would diagnose a severe mental illness based on some words on a website. To do so is incredibly irresponsible at best. Also, I think that, when it is about a case like schizophrenia, 100 trained psychiatrists would very likely all come up with very similar diagnoses. Psychiatry stopped being a random guessing game a very long time ago.

No, I do not have a baseline anxiety problem, or any anxiety problem at all, so I guess you're not getting as good at this as you think.

I'm beginning to wonder if Frank isn't the only troll around here...

[Note: this is an edit of a previous post]

Wow, a forum of empty-brained, crude, ugly, and common insults in the relative absence of the discussion and development of important and original ideas.

If you can really think, would you really want to participate here?

Site administrator, stop the insults, trash, lies, rudeness, and wasted posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankDiMeglio

Wow, a forum of empty-brained, crude, ugly, and common insults in the relative absence of the discussion and development of important and original ideas.

If you can really think, would you really want to participate here?

Site administrator, stop the insults, trash, lies, rudeness, and wasted posts.

---

We can't have a discussion of your "important and original ideas" if we can't understand you. Your writing style, your syntax, your choice of words - they're not conducive to helping others understand you. It's a garbled, splattered, Jackson Pollock-like mess of words.

Also, if you want to contact a site admin, PM him or her. Don't just randomly post in a thread. Chances are, they won't see it.

Well that's a radical change.

Are you willing to answer some questions yet Frank?

You all are not saying anything, except insults and garbage, mainly. Some of you have made some really good points, but not many. Say something. Ask something intelligent.

I have put up a lot of huge ideas here. I know how important and valuable these ideas are. The people that are negative and miserable here do not worry me. Where are your ideas? Ask questions, stay on track with the discussion. Some of you simply cannot think as well or as deeply as I can; you have made that clear. That, however, does not mean that my ideas are wrong.

Stop the games. It's real simple.

This is a great thread. Gab, it is not? You know it is. Believe me, I am a very, very confident thinker. You have to be in order to be able to think at this level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankDiMeglio

You all are not saying anything, except insults and garbage, mainly. Some of you have made some really good points, but not many. Say something. Ask something intelligent.

I have put up a lot of huge ideas here. I know how important and valuable these ideas are. The people that are negative and miserable here do not worry me. Where are your ideas? Ask questions, stay on track with the discussion. Some of you simply cannot think as well or as deeply as I can; you have made that clear. That, however, does not mean that my ideas are wrong.

Stop the games. It's real simple.

This is a great thread. Gab, it is not? You know it is. Believe me, I am a very, very confident thinker. You have to be in order to be able to think at this level.

---

In one clear concise line, What is middle space?

Instead of basking in whatever self-proclaimed brilliance you think you have, try instead to work on your writing. There are very intelligent people on these forums, some participating in this thread. If they can't understand you, perhaps the problem lies not with them, but with you. Your posts read like Deepak Chopra ejaculating onto a keyboard. It's a big, confusing mess.

Frank, I personally have asked you a half dozen clear, concise questions with zero garbage added, including Dutchraptor's "What is middle space?" Others have asked you very respectfully for clarification as well, with zero insults or garbage.

Instead of answering our queries, though, you simply re-post the things we didn't understand in the first place... who here is being disrespectful, Frank? Also, simply saying something does not equal proving it... you need to do a bit more than that.

These threads will never be important, Frank, until people can understand what you are saying. Work with us, answer us, and listen to Blueline's good advice. Otherwise, assume that your message will never reach anyone.

While waking and standing, full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen and felt/touched. Visible space is full distance in/of space as it is seen and felt/touched. This full and visible space/distance may be expressed and represented (on average) as a fundamentally equivalent and balanced middle distance in/of space that is also invisible. (Full gravity, space collapses. Full inertia, space disperses.)

Dreams balance being and experience. Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Accordingly, dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space consistent with gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in ultimate and fundamental equilibrium and balance. Therefore, there is balanced (including maximum) middle strength force/energy/feeling/touch in dreams. Notice that the experience of the eye/body is both visible and invisible. Vision begins invisibly inside the eye/body. Dream experience is possible/potential and actual.

Full inertia is outer space, as it [entirely] destroys and precludes our thought, being, and experience (including visual experience).

This is clearly correct. It is a major breakthrough in physics.

So middle space is the synthesis of the dialectic of visible and distant space as it seen/touched? How do I achieve this balance in dream?

If dreams are the potential and the actual was Aristotle wrong all along?!

How do I feel/touch space??

Congratulations on your breakthrough in physics. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankDiMeglio

While waking and standing, full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen and felt/touched. Visible space is full distance in/of space as it is seen and felt/touched. This full and visible space/distance may be expressed and represented (on average) as a fundamentally equivalent and balanced middle distance in/of space that is also invisible. (Full gravity, space collapses. Full inertia, space disperses.)

Dreams balance being and experience. Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Accordingly, dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space consistent with gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in ultimate and fundamental equilibrium and balance. Therefore, there is balanced (including maximum) middle strength force/energy/feeling/touch in dreams. Notice that the experience of the eye/body is both visible and invisible. Vision begins invisibly inside the eye/body. Dream experience is possible/potential and actual.

Full inertia is outer space, as it [entirely] destroys and precludes our thought, being, and experience (including visual experience).

This is clearly correct. It is a major breakthrough in physics.

---

Still here waiting on you to take our advice and come up with something coherent.

This is the only thread I think I've seen to get a 1 star review. :p

Ok, I want to take a crack at this. Some of the things Frank is saying do seem to make sense to me.

1) Dream experience and waking experience are fundamentally, necessarily, and ultimately linked, related, and constituted, and yet they are separate as well. Dream experience grows/increases.

This seems self evident.

2) There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

This is a really cool phrase. Seems similar to my thoughts of "there is no logic but dream logic". Or maybe this means that dreams seem to have the inside track, so no chance of outsmarting them.

3) Dreams balance being and experience.

This is a deep subject to contemplate the nature of being and experience. To say that dream balance them is interesting and worthy of investigation.

4) Dream experience is invisible/not visible in relation to visible waking experience.

Seems self evident.

5) Dreams involve fundamentally and ultimately equivalent and balanced inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism (i.e., half gravity and half inertia). Dream experience involves equivalent and balanced repulsion and attraction. Dream experience includes and involves quantum gravity.

The way Frank uses these terms of inertia, gravity, and quantum gravity is foreign to my normal use and so I need to wrap my brain around these concepts as he uses them. Frank some help here...

6) Dream experience is possible/potential and actual.

This I think is describing how in dreams what is possible/potential can also be actual. In dreaming there is no real separation between these.

7) The self as conscious and alive in conjunction with the fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are would ultimately, theoretically, actually, and fundamentally unify physics/physical experience (including seen and felt/touched).

This is a tough one. I'll try to simplify it to see if it makes any sense to me: The self as conscious and alive in conjunction with the experience of our growth, would ultimately unify physical experience. Seems like your saying the self through experience and growth would eventually unify physical experience? I don't get what you mean by "unify physics/physical experience.

8) Invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance IS the middle distance in/of space (logically, fundamentally, and clearly) consistent with half gravity and half inertia. This applies to stabilized and full distance in/of space as it is seen AND felt/touched in both our waking and standing and dream experiences. (Notice that instantaneity applies to the extension of space.) Being and experience are necessarily and fundamentally visible and invisible in balance.

Here and in later post you really seem to be describing how dream occupy the middle realm between Being (non-physical) and Experience/Space (physical). It seems like you're breakthrough realization is about this middle equilibrium and how it relates to dreams. We really need you to break this down in more simple terms or a more lengthy explanation if you can.

9) Thoughts are invisible. Thoughts are not visible or visual experience. Thought is MORE LIKE like sensory experience (including visual) in dreams, thereby improving upon memory and UNDERSTANDING. The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Here I think you are saying how thoughts are sensory experiences. I agree with that, only not through the 5 outer senses. And in dreams thoughts become visible and sensory-physical. You are saying because thoughts are also sensory experience (of the same nature as sensory experience) for that reason that thoughts can describe and orginize are sensory world. And perhaps you are also saying that because thoughts become visible/physical in dreams that is one of the functions of dreaming bolster the thinking process.

I don't know, did I get any of that right?

hmmmmm. Im with BLUELINE- none of it makes any sense with all the unintelligable chatter. If people are to buy Franks book, I think they would like to be able to understand what he is saying
and formulate their own opinions. How can you have any opinion on his ideas if you dont know what he is saying? :uhm:

Hi Frank, I think I'm starting to get what you're saying. People here are having so much trouble with what you're trying to convey, thinking you're spouting gibberish or something. You're way of writing does make it difficult, but people need to drill down and try to grock what you're saying, or perhaps just let it be and move on to something else.

You fairly clearly lay it out what you are proposing in your first paragraph of this Thread.

Our experience is necessarily that of the middle distance in/of space, in our waking and dream experience. Dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia and fundamentally equivalent and balanced gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. Dream experience fully involves quantum gravity. Dreams balance being and experience. The ultimate unification of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Dreams combine, balance, and include opposites. Unification in physics demands and involves a balancing of being AND experience.

Newton believed that inertia must be a property of space itself. Nobody, to this day, can truly and fundamentally explain gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing. Given full inertia, space disperses. Given full gravity, space collapses. What is at issue here is the very extensiveness of space itself. Physics does not get more important than this.

It is your writing style and method of presenting the evidence for this thesis that is difficult to follow and easy to get lost in. Let me try to repeat back some of the things I think you're trying to say in my own terminology and please if you can understand me, tell me if I'm on the right track.

I can make sense of it if I consider your "outer space" and "Earth/ground" as metaphorical terms.

Earth/ground is full gravity. Outer space is full inertia. The invisible space/sky extends/is between both.

I know this is more than a metaphor in your description as is the real mystery of gravitational and inertial equivalency more than a metaphor. But to not get lost in your descriptions it's helpful to see that you're using the sky/space that lies between Earth/ground (full gravity) and outer space (full inertia) as the point of equilibrium.

This place of equilibrium you are calling "middle distance" and also describe it as equal to half gravity and half inertia.

Then you go on to point out that our "reality" (my words) consist of visible/invisible as an inseparable dialectic. (I may not be using that term right.) And yes Vision as we experience it is invisible, but at the same time we can "see" in others, physical parts that create that vision. But the two never join. Vision as vision, is never the same as seeing biological substances. So how to unify these?

And this is the crux of what I think you are saying. Dreaming is that middle ground. The middle distance, the unity of visible and invisible. Unity of Being and Experience. Being (void) (full inertia?) and Experience (physicality) (full gravity).

The remainder of your posts seem to be more ways of describing how dreaming is the middle distance, the unifying principle, the equilibrium. Ha' now I know why you call it the "middle distance". It's because to say middle ground isn't right, nor to say middle space as you've already described "ground" and "space" as polarities So the better term is "middle distance".

If I'm more or less right about the above, then knowing this I find it much easier to follow the rest of your explanations.

I hope this helps other people too, assuming I got it right, more or less.

-DreamRealEyes

Ok, now I'm catching the bug here Frank. Maybe some on the forum will think what you have is contagious :)

Let me tackle you're point #9 again. (Sorry I can't wait for you to reply to my earlier posts, but I really think you are onto to something here and my mind is racing...)

9) Thoughts are invisible. Thoughts are not visible or visual experience. Thought is MORE LIKE like sensory experience (including visual) in dreams, thereby improving upon memory and UNDERSTANDING. The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Thoughts are of course a mystery. How do they fit into physical reality? They are like the quandary of the eye vs vision. Sure we can see (outside of ourselves), the eyball, nerves and brain and we can confer that they produce vision, but there is always a gap. That wet matter is never the same as vision. And it's the same with all our sensory experience. This is what I think you refer to as Visible vs Invisible.

Being vs Experience. Being cannot be known. Any attempt to know it one faces only Void. And yet it is Real. It is the most Real, realer than real and unknowable.

Experience is the "physical world", seeming exterior to our Being it seems knowable. It is the Objective world.

Dreaming is the "middle distance" between Being and Experience.

Dreaming is where "We" actually Exist. Dreaming, the middle distance between Void and Matter. We can't be only matter and although we ultimately perhaps are Void, we can't know ourselves as Void.

To know ourselves, in fact to have a SELF, is to BE IN DREAMING. To Exist is to Dream.

Vision is dreaming, thoughts are dreaming. There IS nothing but dreaming.

Well, at lest that's were your concept of middle distance has taken me...

-DreamRealEyes

Hmmmm, So perhaps he is saying our perception is all a result of the same mechanism as dreaming. This can involve two lines of thought. 1) biological mechanism 2) esoteric conceptualization. or, 1) We only experience the external world, internally. 2) real life is in fact composed of a material far more similar to dreams than most realize.

I actually believe both. However, and not trying to slam Frank, where is the physics in this very poorly worded theory of his? Also, these thoughts are not new, and can be stated in a few short clear sentences.

I hate to be mean, but my suspicion is that Frank feels if no one can understand the pseudo science terms, but they get a vague feeling that something has been said, that we will assume we are just not smart enough to understand. This is sort of like a grade schooler sitting in on a lecture 3 weeks into a college class. The teacher could be spouting nonsense and the child would simply assume they are not smart enough to understand.

Face it, if all of us here who are normally considered educated and good with language can not understand Frank, that clearly must mean Frank is vastly smarter than us. Clearly? See, we are just not educated and wise enough, and should all feel Frank must be very wise indeed.

Please forgive any sarcasm above, chances are I just do not understand language enough to convey how small Frank's vast intellect makes me feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sivason

Hmmmm, So perhaps he is saying our perception is all a result of the same mechanism as dreaming. This can involve two lines of thought. 1) biological mechanism 2) esoteric conceptualization. or, 1) We only experience the external world, internally. 2) real life is in fact composed of a material far more similar to dreams than most realize.

I actually believe both. However, and not trying to slam Frank, where is the physics in this very poorly worded theory of his? Also, these thoughts are not new, and can be stated in a few short clear sentences.

I hate to be mean, but my suspicion is that Frank feels if no one can understand the pseudo science terms, but they get a vague feeling that something has been said, that we will assume we are just not smart enough to understand. This is sort of like a grade schooler sitting in on a lecture 3 weeks into a college class. The teacher could be spouting nonsense and the child would simply assume they are not smart enough to understand.

Face it, if all of us here who are normally considered educated and good with language can not understand Frank, that clearly must mean Frank is vastly smarter than us. Clearly? See, we are just not educated and wise enough, and should all feel Frank must be very wise indeed.

Please forgive any sarcasm above, chances are I just do not understand language enough to convey how small Frank's vast intellect makes me feel.

---

Nooooo sivason

Folks dont understand me or my dream game:

♣♣♣

http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...-reloaded.html

♣♣♣

It takes me 3 times longer thann the average student and worker to catch-on. And yet no one sees the importance of my dream game. Not on the IASD (the International Association for the Study of Dreams) Discussion Boards or Saltcube or here. If they did they would play.

So I don't think Frank thinks he's ... what you said.

Thank you, DreamRealEyes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamRealEyes

Ok,

now I'm catching the bug here Frank.

Maybe some on the forum will think what you have is contagious :)

Let me tackle you're point #9 again. (Sorry I can't wait for you to reply to my earlier posts, but I really think you are onto to something here and my mind is racing...)

9) Thoughts are invisible. Thoughts are not visible or visual experience. Thought is MORE LIKE like sensory experience (including visual) in dreams, thereby improving upon memory and UNDERSTANDING. The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Thoughts are of course a mystery.

How do they fit into physical reality?

They are like the quandary of the eye vs vision. Sure we can see (outside of ourselves), the eyeball, nerves and brain and we can confer that they produce vision, but there is always a gap. That wet matter is never the same as vision. And it's the same with all our sensory experience. This is what I think you refer to as Visible vs Invisible.

Being vs Experience. Being cannot be known. Any attempt to know it one faces only Void. And yet it is Real. It is the most Real, realer than real and unknowable.

Experience is the "physical world", seeming exterior to our Being it seems knowable. It is the Objective world.

Dreaming is the "middle distance" between Being and Experience. Yeeessss!!! got it, wow!!!

Dreaming is where "We" actually Exist. Dreaming, the middle distance between Void and Matter. We can't be only matter and although we ultimately perhaps are Void, we can't know ourselves as Void.

To know ourselves, in fact to have a SELF, is to BE IN DREAMING. To Exist is to Dream.

Vision is dreaming, thoughts are dreaming. There IS nothing but dreaming.

Well, at lest that's were your concept of middle distance has taken me...

-DreamRealEyes

---

That has caused an exciting revelation for me concerning how my dream game causes massive synchronicities. But don't ask me to explain how. I can't put into words. If I tried I would sound like Frank.

Thank you Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sivason

I hate to be mean, but my suspicion is that Frank feels if no one can understand the pseudo science terms, but they get a vague feeling that something has been said, that we will assume we are just not smart enough to understand. This is sort of like a grade schooler sitting in on a lecture 3 weeks into a college class. The teacher could be spouting nonsense and the child would simply assume they are not smart enough to understand.

Face it, if all of us here who are normally considered educated and good with language can not understand Frank, that clearly must mean Frank is vastly smarter than us. Clearly? See, we are just not educated and wise enough, and should all feel Frank must be very wise indeed.

---

I was hoping Frank would respond to my posts so I could talk to him instead of about him. I too would like to know if it is a case of what you describe above or if it is like havago describes and it is that Frank has a personal insight that is very profound to him but he is so lacking the tools or acumen to convey in words. He is using scientific terms in his own unique ways which makes it seem like pseudo science. I know that people can have profound insights but lack the ability to convey them in words. So that is why I started to take apart what he was saying and see if it made any sense to me, and I found that it did. Also I found that I was attracted to some of the ideas he was conveying. That for me they were like little puzzle pieces that fit into an unclear picture I'm trying to discern. It may well be that they can be found better stated someplace else, but for me Frank is the DC (in my waking dream) that brought these gems to me. Maybe the better because I had to pick them out of the mud. :) Anyway I still plan to pursue this line of thought further and still want to converse with Frank to see if maybe there's more to his insight I would find useful, or maybe find he's only playing a game. Either way I have still gotten something out of it.

I would like to share what the insight is to me, but I may not do that here unless Frank enters the conversation and it's possible to actually converse with him.

Thanks for your input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havago

That has caused an exciting revelation for me concerning how my dream game causes massive synchronicities. But don't ask me to explain how. I can't put into words. If I tried I would sound like Frank.

---

I will look into your post. Stating that your dream game causes massive synchronicities has peeked my interest. But I'm short of time this weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamRealEyes

I was hoping Frank would respond to my posts so I could talk to him instead of about him. I too would like to know if it is a case of what you describe above or if it is like havago describes and it is that Frank has a personal insight that is very profound to him but he is so lacking the tools or acumen to convey in words. He is using scientific terms in his own unique ways which makes it seem like pseudo science. I know that people can have profound insights but lack the ability to convey them in words. So that is why I started to take apart what he was saying and see if it made any sense to me, and I found that it did. Also I found that I was attracted to some of the ideas he was conveying. That for me they were like little puzzle pieces that fit into an unclear picture I'm trying to discern. It may well be that they can be found better stated someplace else, but for me Frank is the DC (in my waking dream) that brought these gems to me. Maybe the better because I had to pick them out of the mud. :) Anyway I still plan to pursue this line of thought further and still want to converse with Frank to see if maybe there's more to his insight I would find useful, or maybe find he's only playing a game. Either way I have still gotten something out of it.

I would like to share what the insight is to me, but I may not do that here unless Frank enters the conversation and it's possible to actually converse with him.

Thanks for your input.

---

I hope he does attempt to converse with you and that it is normal daily language. So far he has responded to simple questions in strange hard to follow rambling paragraphs. It harms no one for Frank to be odd. Perhaps it is the times he claims he is just so much smarter than others that gets people irritated and led me to a some what immature use of sarcasm.


Havago, there is a clear difference between you and Frank. You are kind and pleasant. You acknowledge you have conditions in your life that make your posts a little rambling and a touch confusing. You never claim it is others who have a problem because they have trouble with your complex thoughts. I like you because you stay pleasant and attempt to reword things and work with us.

I see a pattern of dissent of free thinkers here. Frank is a perfect victim of this mentality. First attack his character, then elaborate on how he is not making sense. Then start accusing him of things to make him out to be intellectually inferior. Then talk about how open minded you are. The game is up, it's obvious to us that have brains.

Or it's because we've asked him to speak in plain terms about his ideas and he has thus far refused to do so while constantly parroting out the exact same words and phrases that nobody understands. If you can give the rest of us a summary of his thoughts that the average person could make sense of, by all means, do it.

Also, the contents of your signature might be considered harassment. Best to remove it before somebody reports it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Or it's because we've asked him to speak in plain terms about his ideas and he has thus far refused to do so while constantly parroting out the exact same words and phrases that nobody understands. If you can give the rest of us a summary of his thoughts that the average person could make sense of, by all means, do it.

Also, the contents of your signature might be considered harassment. Best to remove it before somebody reports it.

---

Oh God your post came too late! My hand slipped and I clicked the button that looks like a question mark in a triangle, what do???

Now he has all been report. ;(

In all seriousness, Deanstar your post seems sarcastic, is it? If not, lol. You must subscribe to his beliefs on the fundamental equilibrium and balance being in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. You have seen the futility in Christian ideals, where is your God now?

This will help to clarify my position here:

THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL REALITY AND DREAM EXPERIENCE

ON INERTIA AND GRAVITY:

INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL EQUIVALENCY AND BALANCING IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PHYSICISTS. (THEY ADMIT THIS.) WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL AND MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION OF WHY THERE IS EXTENSIVENESS OF SPACE. GIVEN FULL GRAVITY, SPACE COLLAPSES. GIVEN FULL INERTIA, SPACE DISPERS...ES. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. (The physicists regard inertia and gravity as opposites.)

The truth is simple. Stand up and look directly at the Earth/ground. Touch the top of your head. Consider VISIBLE space. Now, FULL GRAVITY is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. This is most important, and it is fundamental. We are TOUCHING the Earth/ground.

Outer space is full inertia, as it destroys and precludes our being, thought, and experience (including visual experience). It all makes sense. Think about it. Outer space is black; there is weightlessness; and we are NOT TOUCHING anything.

The INVISIBLE space above the VISIBLE Earth/ground consitutes a MIDDLE space in keeping with half gravity and half inertia.

ON DREAMS:

VISION begins INVISIBLY inside the eye/body.

Dreams involve the FUNDAMENTAL experience of our growth and becoming other than we are.

Dreams balance being and experience, and dream experience includes and involves bodily experience. Dreams combine, balance, and include opposites. Dream experience is SEMI--DETACHED in relation to touch/tactile experience. Thought is MORE LIKE sensory experience in general in dreams. Dreams are not a creation of thought.

Dreams prove that bodily experience involves visible and invisible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance. THAT IS IMPORTANT.

Dream experience is a linked center of body experience that involves balanced and MIDDLE strength (maximum) force/energy/touch/feeling. (Television is FULLY DETACHED in relation to touch, as the distance in/of space is ELIMINATED/flattened. Television is a creation of thought, as TV is FULLY LIKE thought. Television must be held to constitute a form or type of hallucination. Television is unnatural. Thoughts are INVISIBLE.)

DREAMS INVOLVE MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE IN RELATION TO BOTH BEING AND EXPERIENCE.

Logically, clearly, and fundamentally, invisible AND visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance IS the MIDDLE distance in/of space consistent with equivalent and balanced half inertia and half gravity. (The power of thought to discern, ascertain, and describe reality and truth is astonishing here!) This is consistent with ALL of the following:

1) The invisible MIDDLE space that we live in and experience.

2) Dream experience.

3) The SEAMLESS whole of the eye/body AND the invisible space.

4) The experience of the EYE/body.

5) Your experience of your eye/body is invisible, and another person's eye is visible. An eye is an eye. The space in between these two experiences necessarily has the properties of visibility AND invisibility. This proves that bodily experience (as is the case in the dream) may involve visible and invisible space in a fundamentally equivalent and balanced fashion. THAT IS HUGE.

The so-called dream "experts" tell us that:

Dreams are a creation of thought. Dreams are the physics of the brain. Dreams are hallucinations. Dream experience is not real OR actual experience. Wow! Really??!!??!!

This is not only entirely insufficient, it is flat out wrong. These "experts" did not know what dreams truly and really are, plain and simple.

Dream experience naturally, theoretically, actually, fundamentally, and ultimately unifies and balances physics/physical reality (including seen and felt/touched along with gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism). There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams. Do the modern, mainstream, academic, theoretical physicists want to admit to this??!! They are not going to have any choice but to admit to it. I have overwhelming, clear, fundamental, logical, undeniable, various, and consistent proof of it. I love it. The truth matters folks. IT MATTERS ALOT.

Dream experience IS quantum gravity -- naturally, fully, theoretically, AND actually. There is no getting around this either.
================================================== =========================================

Dreams are not a creation of thought. Indeed, the totality of dream experience, considered on the whole, is just as emotional as it is thoughtful.

by Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

the contents of your signature might be considered harassment.

---

lets not start with the double standards, it's just a joke dude. What about your avatar? Its ok it matches mine haha.

You really need to lighten up a bit.