Drawing the line between feeling and fact

[Miguel]

Now I understand why you have emphasized the subject so many times:

@rick

Therefore nothing can be metaphysical, all must be physical (material, factual, actual) without exception; therefore hallucinations and mirages must themselves be physical (material, factual, actual), and not merely physically (materially, factually, actually) based.

So when you mentioned the “boundless, borderless, limitless universe" you were not necessarily responding to an explicit contrary statement from Richard or from others, but to other statements (from Richard or from others) that in your view implicitly could held (or from which inferentially could be followed) that there is something more than a “universe that is physically absolute”. Although in many cases the repetition still strikes me as an excess of precaution, I understand it now (if I understood it correctly; if not, by all means correct me).

Because of this (unless, I repeat, I am mistaken), I will overlook that your answer…

@rick

There are not two worlds (or universes); there is only one world (or universe); the ‘real world’ does not exist in any way, shape, or form.

…did not answer my question, which was where @claudiu, @kiman and others had claimed that the real and the actual world could exist outside the universe. However, that answer and your two final statements + question…

@rick

given that (a) only the actual world exists; and that (b) the ‘real world’ does not exist, then do the emotions of a new-born infant exist in the actual world?

…serves me to bring up a problem that I had with several of your answers and comments in this topic: sometimes I don’t know whether you are stating your ideas on a point (even when quoting AF’s words, in which case I take them as your way of endorsing your ideas) or, instead, stating what AF holds on a point (or you think AF holds on it) even without you necessarily agreeing with those AF’s ideas. Even when you ask questions, I’m often not sure if it’s a rhetorical form of stating your ideas or stating AF’s ideas (instead of truly asking).

So, taking this particular subject, my confusion increases because there are a lot of mentions of the real world in the AF site (along with the mentions you quoted that only the actually world exists). The emphases are Richard’s:
“The normal world is commonly known as the real world or reality”
“The self-imposed iniquities that ail the people who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world”
“for the daring to be here as this body only. One does this by stepping out of the real world into this actual world”

Note that I am not quoting this to establish either my position or what I believe to be AF’s position on the subject, so please do not answer as if they were. I am only trying to understand you better, so they are just examples because I know you are familiar with this type of allusions to “the real world”

So, can you clarify the following (leaving aside for now the answer to your question)?

1. “only the actual world exists”
   Can you tell me if this is your opinion/understanding, or if it’s what you think AF claims, or both?

2. the ‘real world’ does not exist
   Can you tell me if this is your opinion/understanding, or if it’s what you think AF claims, or both?

3. In your opinion, what is the meaning that Richard gives to “world” in those expressions? What do you think he is alluding to?
   Or, may be, are you trying to emphasize that you don’t understand the difference (or even that the difference can’t be understanded) because there seems to be one or more contradictions in AF that prevent that understanding? In this case, please point them out.

Thanks