Wow - you seem to write in a compact statements like that, that could be usefully unpacked a bit. Are you taking that picture from Michael Newton's "Journey of Souls", or something else?
David
OK, since you asked. But the only way to explain this is if I present the full picture. This is all and only my "map of all" and perhaps better stated, "map of all known and all possibility." I should entitle it - "Map of All
for Dummies" (me being the dummy).
I came up with the word combination of "hard physicality" versus "soft physicality" independently of Michael Newton and have intentionally stayed away from his work.
To understand my terms, I first must explain what I mean when I use the word "physicality." So to do that, I have to explain my "map of all." I create my "map of all" because I want to explore "it all" philosophically and speculatively when that "all" extends beyond this material realm. To do so I have to identify the essential components. So I start with that which is sometimes referred to as the Absolute and then I consider consciousness (as viewed by Bernardo Kastrup - ie. monistic idealism). It appears to me that within consciousness are individualized expressions of that consciousness such as you and I.
And it seems quite possible that my experience of myself as an individualized expression of consciousness does not necessarily have to end when I can no longer "touch my body" (when it dies) yet I was never able to "touch my mind" while alive suggesting "I" am not the body, perhaps
"I" am only experiencing through a body. So my "map of all" incorporates the assumption "I" am not the body, "I" am an individualized expression of consciousness that has the opportunity to experience a world via that which appears to me to be a body. Since "I" am not primarily "physical" yet experience as an individualized expression of consciousness, I place "I" as anchored in "soft physicality" and the body I experience through is of the "hard physical" realm... yet "all" is within consciousness as a whole and fundamental medium.
That some of the stuff found in that world (hard physicality) is stuff found in the body, I conclude the body and that world are common to each other. I call this world, "hard physicality" in relation to what I cannot prove exists, which I only hope exists, a world beyond this world. And so, if that "beyond this world" world exists, where my sense of individuation is
maintained, that greater world still appears to contain
form or I could not sense "I" as "not others" as also perhaps "not what might appear in that other worldly world" which is not "I" or "others" be there such. Individualization is an aspect of form.
So there's two key properties shared by both hard and soft physicality. One (which has to be for the other to be) is
form. and the other is the appearance of individualized expressions of consciousness.
And so how I express "it all" as "a map" is as follows:
Zone Zero - the Absolute (capitalized only to emphasize my respect for "It")
Zone One - consciousness (as a whole and fundamental to all the comes forth from within it - form, individualized expressions of consciousness)
Zone Two - physicality, within which is soft physicality and hard physicality.
Zone Three - hard physicality (that which some refer to as "the material realm)."
If one wishes to see this visually, (and I understand this is, regarding Zone 0, 1 and 2, either philosophical and/or speculative) imagine four circles where Zone 3 is the smallest and fits within a larger circle, Zone Two, which fits within a larger circle, Zone One, which fits within the largest Circle, Zone 0. The map is metaphorically representational only as you can't map the Absolute or consciousness as a whole.
It seems to me that those (like myself) who have become familiar with "things" like "the Absolute"... (essentially
pure philosophy as we, anchored in Zone Three, considering all this in our "minds" (Zone Two), can only speculate philosophically when we strive to view it),... can, at best, sense "that which precedes awareness and has no other." And consciousness, as a whole, as foundational to "all" may never be "proven" from a Zone Three perspective either.
It seems to me that metaphysical, cosmological world views are, at best, assumptions. Yet regardless of whether or not one thinks they have to decide what may be true in this regard, its my strong opinion we all operate with one
as our primary assumption, and in most cases, it seems folks do this without ever consciously considering it (much like Mark Gober describes was the case for himself prior to his listening to the Skeptiko episodes, by the way, and much the same for me). I think its a safe bet to say almost all the world operates from the assumption of materialism and within that group are a huge swath of folks who hold to something religious yet operate in that way "dualistically" thus creating a "two-world" view which has no hope in explaining how they could come to be (in the "hard physical" sense) in any sort of connected way but worse (and again, only my opinion), sets up irreconcilable conflict. This, to me, explains the state of the world today.
Everything I wrote above is simply meant to describe my map and there''s zero intention to impose it on another or to impose any of its components. But to be able to properly describe what I mean when I use the terms "hard physicality" and "soft physicality" I am compelled to share the full map and not just Zone Two (soft) and Zone Three (hard), the two zones of form/individualization within consciousness as a fundamental whole.