G to the De-tox
I hope you enjoy my next attempt to purge this place of its ugliness.
Purpose: To (a) share my spiritual experiences, (b) learn in an open-minded environment, (c) practice my evangelicalism. This will facilitate a holistic approach to understanding the big picture, though we can't fully understand it during our time. It is a paradox to be thinking in 4D. Yet we can infer within our limits some of what it entails. The more we look at paradoxes the more we come to the ineffable, and vice versa. Modern thought has mostly been dualistic as a result of what was normally 3D-thinking (modern science approves this with innumerable evidence), but now it is expanding outward as we pervade the scope of time (as a continuous spectrum). A most illustrative method is to combine the 3 general aspects we see of life into one. It's supposed to become an image of order and simplicity in your mind... The following 3 categories include: Art, Science, & Religion - Each of these are important to an extent in our lives (the whole of humanity). My hypothesis is that all these paths in life search for the same thing. 1. There is art: Why? Nature makes its own art (as science suggests), objectively; we tap into nature to bring out its art, subjectively. Art usually provokes an emotional response by utilizing a shift in the focus between simple and un-simple things by putting them in and out of context. This spawns pattern, symmetry, irony, ambiguity, etc - all the aesthetics. If you think about why a big twist at the end of a movie gives us a shock, it's because of a suspension of belief, or a shift of context. On a larger scale, everything we do and create is a work of art on some level. "Art for art's sake" is partly bullsh*t. The very fact that art feels a need to become more sophisticated and interesting over time is a hint to the underlying concept that art seeks for a purpose. Thus, art contains objective light. When we look at many self-proclaimed "artistic" people, we find a very spiritual quality that has come to be implied with a figurative heart and soul. This type of person probably knows about the paradox seen at the root of our feelings. They have seen a seemingly love-hate duality, until they finally recognized it as it truly was, as a love versus fear scenario (or love with its back turned). Call it the "logic" of love, or in any manner, but both men and women have been putting up with it since Adam and Eve. To put it in one sentence: our expression of art and meaning comes from love. 2. There is science: Why? "Cogito, ergo sum." All of science is trying to formulate a complete response to this most fundamental proposition on the philosophy of knowledge. We might be able to infer that we exist, but 'why?' is still the lingering question. So rather than only speculating and reacting with our imagination, we mix it up by investigating natural and material substances where our actions and reality take form. Our logic has been reduced to binary distinctions, and to avoid the dualistic quarrel, further to probabilistic relations. Scientists are trying desperately to reduce the paradox of our overextended 4D-vision into worldly knowledge. This brings about a progressive, if not positive, light into science. People have realized a body of knowledge through interpretation of their experiences. As a result of this understanding, people feel a sense of power that comes with it. This energy, if you will, is what makes us apply our education in the world and in society, as we feel a sense of responsibility for bringing it about. (It also seems related to the influx we notice at the subatomic level). But the important point here is that we seek advancement because it gives us more confidence and assurance in our lives. The ultimate goal is to find out what is really true. We look at the most basic feature we know of the universe, light, and in between try to uncover both its beginning and its destination. Therein lies the answer to universal truth. 3. There is religion: Why? Religion is more of an intermediary aspect than the more polarized aspects of art and science. It is correlated to many pursuits in both the arts and sciences. And despite its interdisciplinary nature, it has the most simplistic approach to living life. This peace of mind that religious faith brings to an individual is more than just reassurance they will prevail in the end. It acts as motivation to go on living a balanced and healthy lifestyle (an art to living, so to say, with the aid of science). Historically, the basis of religion has provided a mosaic of cultures and traditions, churches and synagogues. The emphasis has not only been on personal development, but on building stronger communities and developing social life. Given these missions, religions hope to unite people together so we can live in peace, if not harmony. Even though churches may turn dogma into distraction, there's no denying they help to set priorities in life toward charities, families, friends, and most importantly, unto God. [The latest neuroscience is demonstrating a strong correlation between happiness and intercommunicating in the fullest. Our most profound experiences are largely inexplicable in writing and thinking anyway. We feel the greatest sensations when our emotions become loosened in the presence of other people. And according to this science, these vibes (or electrodes) are vitally implanted in our brains to give us pleasure. This gets lost when we're only exposed to virtual means of communication.] I. Summary a + 1, b + 2, c + 3, ... Art ~ Love Science ~ Truth Religion ~ God Love = Truth = God That is my proposition, no joke. Go ahead and make jokes about my sentiments on this kind of forum, if you feel like it, but it just so happens that that's what's new around here. If you try to subdue your machismo for the time being you might just get some of the picture. |
Re: G to the De-tox
II. Other questions
Why do things seem paradoxical and dualistic? The best hypothesis I have is an analogy with the classic male-female duality. The differences between men and women provide us with the most comprehensive profile of a paradox in history. Orthodoxy views the male as the first human being followed by the female. But however they both came to be, it was likely from the separation of One into two. I think that split is what caused an inherent dualistic quality into our nature. We see the obvious signs now with how females are more oriented toward art while males are more oriented toward science. A good analogy is a psychological experiment that is done on children's habits when they're playing with toy cars and trucks. On average, little Susie drives them along nice and carefully, while little Joey goes speeding along and crashing. When you think about it, it's not hard to see that a lot of hashing between order and chaos is contributed to the different sexes. It's actually common sense to someone whose experienced an in-depth relationship with an opposing sex. Like Einstein said, "when the solution is simple, God is answering." This type of sexism is a fundamental concept to understanding nature. We learn a lot from the general discrepancies we see between males and females. And a lot of our problems in the world seem to be a problem with misunderstanding that of sentimentalism, which is an underlying barrier to communication. Why do we see these 3 essences in life converging toward one goal? I believe I know the answer, as it relates to both art, science, and religion...the pursuit of Love/Truth/God is more important than any of our other creative/scientific/religious freedoms. Indeed, this truth sets us free. It does put a strain on things, and makes it feel like a detox is needed. It also brings connotations to postmodernist thinking, renaissance ideals, and spiritual philosophy, among lots of things. It's probably why we see a sarcastic tone when things get deviated from Truth. This makes sense because only One is completely serious in the end. Our endeavors should strive to bring our ignorance to terms with our unwavering principles (of our faith). Or else, our time is just spent joking around and having fun. The motto I go by which seems to bring success: "moderation is key," as often said. On a related note, the humble philanthropist and big-thinker, Sir John Templeton just died recently at age 95. Or rather, I should say, he fulfilled his life at age 95. |
Re: G to the De-tox
honestly horn - just move on
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
2. I'm not just moving on without reflecting on why I'm moving on. You are being nonsensical here, Yahwe. Furthermore, I could have focused on many of the negative features above, but instead I choose a positive direction. I think that's moving forward in itself. People consider both pros and cons because they need a binary distinction to help their brains out. Then hopefully they recognize that progress is made by correcting wrong things and doing things the right way. I think my first post is a decent overview of mankind, and how it's headed. (Note: I'm using mostly pattern recognition skills to summarize a lot of history, philosophy, theology, statistics, etc., personal experience.) I'm trying to look at things from multiple perspectives here. If you think I misrepresented a general perspective, or if someone wants to include a new perspective, please explain so. There's always room for constructive responses. |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
what are you doing here then ? |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Figures, atheists run out of the foxhole when things get serious. |
Re: G to the De-tox
Your purpose (summarised in the second paragraph) seems to be more of a general idea focussing on posting in GD. It doesn't bear much relevance to the post(s) itself.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
While you are sat there typing out your pretentious, unfounded, evangelical tripe, there are children dying of starvation and disease, women being trafficked and forced into prostitution, families and villages being burned off the map by the Burmese junta, children being snatched in their thousands in Africa to be used as labourers, sex-workers, and soldiers... I could go on. Quote:
Most importantly though, don't reply to me. |
Re: G to the De-tox
I thought I'd try taking a bit of it seriously, to see what happens, and I have nothing else to do anyway!
Quote:
Quote:
Also I think perhaps "complicated" may have been a better choice of word than "un-simple". Quote:
Quote:
- George Sand I don't think that art always feels a need to become more sophisticated, we are past modernism as far as art goes. Art in an old, simple, style can still be popular. More common however would be the combination of an old style with a modern twist, I don't think this is necessarily more "sophisticated" than some of the forms of art of the early 20th Century. Trying new things isn't necessarily always moving towards greater sophistication, but more a reaction against a feeling of exhaustion of contemporary styles, whether the product of this is more sophisticated or not is largely random. Also, even if that were true, you couldn't surmise from it that art always "seeks for a purpose", as Mr Sand said, art for the sake of the good or the beautiful would be a far more popular opinion than some underlying purpose. Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I have to go to work now, I only did one of your things as I don't really have time for the others. I hope to see a nice reply tonight :)))) toodleoo |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
"Prover" - I don't care how well chosen they are, your words are still empty. |
Re: G to the De-tox
Tomkat: my intentions were clearly to spark a healthy debate for those interested in spirituality. Yet, people give me bad rep for being obnoxious or what not. They could have just ignored this post after reading my purposes, if they were not interested, but no.
Deepflow: You give a valid point of the objective-subjective duality being in terms of 3D-thinking. They are probably interrelated in the 4D sense. I just meant to emphasize a connection between nature and human beings. In my mind, all of our language/logic and creativity is used to simplify things that we have yet to understand. So when referring to those expressions, such as art, I use the term 'un-simple' to be logically consistent. I was using the movie twist because I thought it was an obvious example, so not to get complicated. A more phenomenal example is in regard to the golden ratio. This reoccurring proportion in nature is used in the various arts such architecture, painting, and music to synthesize an essence of symmetry. What's interesting is how science is the polar opposite of art, in general. (Note: the golden ratio is a tool which essentially balances the scientific and artistic aspects). Science is mostly about reductive and deconstructive techniques to make "advancement", while art is more about reconstructive and abstract reflections. That's basically what I was saying about a shift of context. Do you not see what I mean now? You also highlight something about the significance of art. Whether art seeks a faint purpose or not, I just noticed I was arguing for its relationship with Love precisely backwards. You said, "art for the sake of the good or the beautiful would be a far more popular opinion than some underlying purpose." I would argue that good and beautiful stem from something much more immense. That is love. Love brings about art. You cannot argue with that. I know many different emotions also bring about art, but my emphasis is on love. I would say this is a most common theme in artistic circles. It also relates nicely to the paradox I explained at the root of our feelings with love. I am aware of my generalizations, but there is no other way to build a short account of my reflections. Telcontar: my words are not empty to yours truly. |
Re: G to the De-tox
Your proposition in itself is already severely flawed.
Your assumption of "religion equals God" is too narrow, while religion is a broader concept which does contain for instance monotheism, polytheism, but also atheism. This flaw also points at a severly narrow mindedness of you yourself, Prover. Your purpose shows this as well: Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Membrivio:
Never did I say "religion equals God". It was clearly "religion is about God". It was also clearly implicit that I meant the God-religions, which make up the 'average' religion anyway. I said up front this was a very broad-minded topic, yet you are confusing that with narrow-mindedness. Furthermore, practicing evangelicalism and learning in an open-minded environment easily do not exclude each other. You know very little about my brand of evangelicalism in the first place. Then you take one sentence that slipped out in a reply of frustration about atheists and try to retract everything else I wrote. When else was I not being positive? Do you not see the problem here is with a gap in communication? It's not about arrogance or narrow-mindedness. It should be about humility and empathy. I have a very good grasp of 'averages' in the world, so that is how I'm presenting my arguments because they are the clear facts of human nature. You might see this post as generalizing too much (I call it pattern recognition), but I think it's as founded as any other scientific discipline. I just haven't included all the hard statistics. |
Re: G to the De-tox
I'm going to ask you a lot of questions this time, in my continuing effort to take you seriously, it would be helpful if you would answer them. One by one would be best, in a similar fashion to the post I am about to make. If I and everyone else can actually understand what you are trying to say I think you will be more successful.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Language is used to communicate, pretty obviously. It's a way of changing material things and concepts into easy to understand signs so that we can pass ideas from one person's mind into anothers and learn from each other. We also use it internally to think. You could say that this is a way of simplifying. The word "rock" is never going to be as "rocky" as a real rock. Logic is completely different, it's the process by which we infer and deduce things starting from other things. It's more fundamental than language and completely, unreservedly correct when used properly. Whereas language is never completely "correct", logic always is. I also don't see how it's a way to simplify things, it's more a way to describe things, simplification is not necessary. Could you explain how you think that is? Creativity could possibly be said to be a way to simplify things I guess, in some circumstances. It simplifies in some respects but quite often it adds to concepts, too. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Define it ffs. Quote:
Quote:
Please, respond to this point by point. Take the time that I have taken with this reply in yours, and we may begin to get somewhere. At the moment you may as well be spouting gibberish. |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." 1 Cor. 13 There is fully no scientific explanation for it. The question is, what is not Love? Is Love not true? |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
It's possible this isn't a problem though, because it's hard to tell if that's what you mean by either 3D thought or dualistic thought. The reason why it's hard to know what you mean by dualistic thought is because you're rambling on about two different aspects of dualism. One is a manichaeian dualism, viewing the world as having identifiable traits that have a "binary opposition". This seems to be what you are labelling as the inherant paradoxes throughout nature (i.e. love and hate). The other seems to be a body/spirit dualism. Something you obviously hold as true given that you believe having sex is a union of souls or whatever. Which one to you belive 3D thinking to be in allegiance to? The reason why it's hard to know what you mean by 3D thinking is because of what you go on to describe 4D thinking as. At first I assumed that by 3D thought, you meant thought that was concerned with sense data we receive from the conventional 3 dimensions that we know of. But then when you mention 4D thinking, you don't seem to be referring to the conventional idea of 4 dimensions (3 spacial dimensions + time). You seem to be referring to the fourth dimension as some convoluted synthesis of art, science and religion. Do you see why none of this makes sense to someone who isn't living in your head? Quote:
Quote:
You could quite easily write a paragraph like this asking you to define pretty much every sentence you have written. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously the first one is ridiculous. If the second one just means we engage in science because we want to find out the truth then i think you're right! The third one..... do you mean religion exists because of god? or because religion exists because people believe in a god and want to get closer to him or pander to him or whatever? Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's good to meet you horn, but you really have no idea what I said, do you? Because you missed the most important point about the difference between 3D- and 4D-thinking. Most of my reasoning is based off the idea that our universe is embedded with a probabilistic nature that intersects two poles. This is not dualistic thinking except in the simplistic sense of language/logic in our 3D environment, so I clearly refer to it as a paradox. When transcending into 4D territory, which is relative to space-time, we also see a paradox on a much grander scale. That is more so involved with a distinction we see between pluralism and monoism. All the latest research in science is trying to bridge this gap with their very large telescopes and their large particle accelerators. Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
This is turning into one of those terrible comedy sketches where the two girls realise they're dating one guy who is pretending to be a twin.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
it also seemed pretty clear cut when you said "To put it in one sentence: our expression of art and meaning comes from love." If you have decided that it really is just a correlation rather than causation between love and art, then what does it really mean? people feel love and sometimes express that through art? unless you stick to what you were earlier saying and instead decide to rest on "sometimes art has kind of something to do with love", it's pretty meaningless. so what if it does? it also has stuff to do with other feelings. [quote=prover (I am clearly one who favors the multiple intelligences theory). Science ignores it by being strictly objective, while art is relatively more subjective. I have specifically referred to this as a 'spiritual' discussion, limited to neither science nor art. [/quote] No one's saying discussions on art are devoid of intelligence. It's just that your pretentious ramblings about the relationship between love and art aren't transcendent realisations, but rather ill thought out bullshit. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
a lot of ownage in this thread
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
level 2
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You feel it? tcch |
Re: G to the De-tox
It shows more about your lack of understanding humanity, your lack of personal values and character, and especially your lack of taking things seriously, as I mentioned earlier. Go ahead and mock me, but know that I'm being resolutely serious here.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Can you reduce your argument down to like 200 words because I read your first post and still dont know what youre trying to argue and I dont really want to read all the other wall-of-texts in da thread because they seem to be all over the place and not focused on anything in particular.
Also what does '4d' have to do with probabilistic thinking I dont get that at all this thread |
Re: G to the De-tox
well this certainly puts to bed any doubts people have about horn's sanity ...
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
So a rock is what it is: a rock. To a petrologist, a rock is a form of igneous sediment crystallized granite mineral heat ashes energized molecules strong chemical bonds atoms etc. Break up a rock, and reduce its meaning. Less information has more meaning. This suggests there is no intrinsic meaning in material things. Since when you lose a sense of order, you also lose a sense of meaning. I explain more below. Do you think everything is pointless? To say so is incomplete and inaccurate. We might not see an ultimate point, but we do see a distribution of points (on a wave function) that become more ordered in time (in their destination). This "plot" we see is based on the concept of entropy in statistical mechanics. Where a loss of information comes from a loss of randomness, and so the maximum entropy is assumed for the most probable explanation of a physical system (Boltzmann). It's also what I mean by the probabilistic nature of the universe. To be more correct, it's the probabilistic nature of humans looking at the universe. Time is chance, so I infer '4D'-thinking. God might not play dice with the universe, but it seems the universe is playing dice with God. |
Re: G to the De-tox
This is getting amusingly absurd. Very pro.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
note: "Tcch" is that sound that black people make with their teeth. |
Re: G to the De-tox
an overmind is an ambiguous meme
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
edit Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Reading some of the other posts has made no sense to me, espcially as I didn't read this one first. I'm going over some old ground, but I don't care.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Expression of art can come from love, but it also comes from many other places. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Some might suggest that the material benefits are why we utilise scientific discoveries and the spreading of education is accompanied by methods of social control, so only 'useful' knowledge is passed along. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
All Systems Go: You clearly did not consider my previous replies because I've largely clarified (and corrected) many of the things you're questioning. Do people not know how proper communication works? I have no idea what you're trying to say in a long post with a bunch of destructive questions. Understand: nobody is teaching here; learning comes from within. Please write in complete paragraphs and try to limit your questions to a few, so to help bridge our communication gap.
The discussion came down to a fundamental difference in our scientific understanding as I explained in post #31. Do try to keep up. The difference between us is that I don't assume to know even 1% about the nature of reality, whereas you (materialists) assume the nature of reality is all we can know. Let's focus on settling this distinction. |
Re: G to the De-tox
I used to have a 3D poster of Sam Fox. I swear down her thighs followed you all round the room.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
anyone find it ironic that this thread started like this
OP wank post Random slaggins from random ppl Now usually this is where the thread dies...but for some reason posters are engaging OP in subjective debate. Holy bat shit did this just become a thread? /me pulls up a seat to watch |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-time -a synthesis of love/truth/god -probability do you understand how ****ing stupid this is? Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But just for you i will try to make my point. (sorry guys). You say that a virtual enviroment numbs the emotions Quote:
Forums are a disconnection from real life interactions, a buffer between the writer and interaction with others, thats why they are so popular, what your saying is that places like this numb the emotional neurons in our brains, so why are you here numbing yours, why are you not out, doing this in real time ? Why should it matter if i am athiest or not ? Does no faith or belief in a higher power preclude the ability to have a reasoned discussion or debate, far from it, a closed mind is the only thing that does that ! |
Re: G to the De-tox
Quote:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
The topic made me sad...ffs, Prover, kill your self :|
|
Re: G to the De-tox
I don't understand why people are humouring him. He's obviously mental.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
I thought we were supposed to encourage new members, regardless of age race, mental compentance or if they're actually a real person? :confused:
|
Re: G to the De-tox
Even I have my limits.
|
Re: G to the De-tox
15 and over.
am i rite |
Re: G to the De-tox
I don't think mental quite covers it. I move we hereafter use the term "batshit insane".
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:46. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018