Perception or plane ?

[susan]

Done a bit of googling and found a very old post on Astral pulse from a member.
He seems to tosh the idea of different planes of existance and says ( 2005) that this is old fashioned way of thinking.
He suggests our experiences depend on levels of perception . This seems to. AKEO sense ( just wanted to write "make sense" ) and it's interesting what word came out instead .Just noticed this after writing the word sense. Flip!!! That is really interesting for me anyway, especially as those four letters are capitals.

( I was going to post this last night but got sidetracked after the AKEO bit. This name is mentioned many times further back in journal)
Forgot now what my question was to be.

[CFTraveler]

I remember participating in such a thread way back when.

I'll repeat what I've said back then, but I'll try to not be too long winded: The reason 'focus levels' are more attractive to some people is because they speak about the consciousness of the experiencer and not of the environment that they experience. This is convenient for the materialists, people who believe that projection is intrasomatic (wholly an experience of the mind or brain) because it only refers to brain-states and states of consciousness, and the post moderns, which still see all consciousness (in or out of body) as a product of the mind or brain (depending on their particular preference), but the problem that I have with these 'newfangled' ways of regarding the experience is that it ignores the quality of the experiences themselves- they are not descriptive about the experiences, while the 'old fashioned' plane descriptions speak to the environments- what they look like, what they feel like, and what you can do with them. And even though the terms 'etheric', 'astral' and 'mental' don't seem that descriptive nowadays, when they were coined, they were very descriptive, ether being the energetic medium that the whole universe is 'suspended' in (which we now call 'space', but conveniently ignore the similarities in descriptors) 'astral' as a more rarefied version of reality, in which thought and emotion form the reality (even though 'astral' means star (coined by Paracelsus who saw those awesome starscapes we see when we're in the astral) back then it also meant 'emotional', one step removed from energy and internalized, and mental is, well, self-explanatory.
Maybe I'm an old softie, but I prefer to describe my environment and what I can do in an environment as if it existed (regardless of whether I believe it exists) instead of describing my experience according to what 'level' of 'consciousness' I'm in when I do it. Maybe it's just me.

Looks like I was long winded anyway.

[Equilibrium]

I'm new to the Focus thing. Wasn't to much into the Etheric, Mental, Astral eaither. I just call them layer1 layer2 ect. xD Which is not a good way to be able to interact with people :3 I agree with CFTraveler, it seems more colorful. But I'm ok with using Focus too.

[Osiris]

Greetings

I've noticed that it seems alittle of both if I understand how the terms are expressed correctly. I think a "type" of plane or place or what have you....location say is there and in common with everyone and is very real, objective, but each of us puts a personal spin on the experience/location that is unique to you, subjective. Like any perception I can never really be sure you see the same red I see....we describe in similar terms but we dont know really if your feeling the same inside. For instance I found my self at somekind of "spiritual help desk" last night. It was some kind of guidance center/place thingy I dont know. Anyway I was strolling through the halls after Id just walked in and was mentally nudged toward a door that read "Service" lol
Now I've always visualized the after life official areas as a kind of Bureaucracy lol like in Beetlejuice (or the DMV) Thats how I know where I was, the bureaucratic heir of the place...worn but functional funiture, in out boxes, filing cabinets, piles of offical/confusing forms and such. And a middle aged, mildly bored no non-science lady at the counter.
Now i know damn good and well that a real "spiritual help place" doesnt look like a collage registration office but for me it does....but I believe for all of us standing in line its still a "spiritual help desk". We each just have different spins on it....I hope im not being stupid....again... burrp

[CFTraveler]

You're not being stupid- the reason that such terminologies exist and that so many people advocate for the one that suits them best is that it works for them. So I'm all for including as much terminology as it's comfortable, because IMO the idea is to transmit the information for those that wish to 'know' what others are experiencing.
The problem I have is when others jump in to tell others that their terminology is 'wrong', or 'old fashioned', 'too mystical', or conversely, 'too technical'. It's just another way of saying 'mine is better.' And that's when I jump in. Heheh.

[LPCF]

I remember participating in such a thread way back when.

I'll repeat what I've said back then, but I'll try to not be too long winded: The reason 'focus levels' are more attractive to some people is because they speak about the consciousness of the experiencer and not of the environment that they experience. This is convenient for the materialists, people who believe that projection is intrasomatic (wholly an experience of the mind or brain) because it only refers to brain-states and states of consciousness, and the post moderns, which still see all consciousness (in or out of body) as a product of the mind or brain (depending on their particular preference), but the problem that I have with these 'newfangled' ways of regarding the experience is that it ignores the quality of the experiences themselves- they are not descriptive about the experiences, while the 'old fashioned' plane descriptions speak to the environments- what they look like, what they feel like, and what you can do with them. And even though the terms 'etheric', 'astral' and 'mental' don't seem that descriptive nowadays, when they were coined, they were very descriptive, ether being the energetic medium that the whole universe is 'suspended' in (which we now call 'space', but conveniently ignore the similarities in descriptors) 'astral' as a more rarefied version of reality, in which thought and emotion form the reality (even though 'astral' means star (coined by Paracelsus who saw those awesome starscapes we see when we're in the astral) back then it also meant 'emotional', one step removed from energy and internalized, and mental is, well, self-explanatory.
Maybe I'm an old softie, but I prefer to describe my environment and what I can do in an environment as if it existed (regardless of whether I believe it exists) instead of describing my experience according to what 'level' of 'consciousness' I'm in when I do it. Maybe it's just me.

Looks like I was long winded anyway.

That is a brilliant summary. I am going to bookmark it. It is not long-winded; on the contrary, it is concise.

FWIW (not much!), I am firmly in the "astral is real and not all in the mind" camp. As for planes of existence, I have seen different levels on the astral and my teacher has spoken of other planes "above" the astral, and I trust him (but of course, that's only a personal thing!).

We each must go the way which seems right to us.