Thread: G to the De-tox
View Single Post
Unread 28 Jul 2008, 01:15   #15
Prover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 35
Prover is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these partsProver is infamous around these parts
Re: G to the De-tox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow View Post
If no one really understands you because you aren't specific enough then you're going to get people just insulting you and you're basically wasting everyone's time.
This is exactly why I'm practicing on forward thinking. However, I think the big picture in its simplicity is extremely underrated. This obviously causes a communication problem between people who focus differently. Does it not? Is there really a true way to focus? I think the solution is for both sides to think forwardly and meet halfway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow View Post
OK... what do you mean by 3D and 4D in this context? What is each dimension? Who thinks 3D and who thinks 4D?
In my third paragraph, I briefly mentioned how science suggested that our thought processes were confined to dualistic interpretation in what I call 3D-thinking. I could go into all the different analogies including binary logic, mirror reflections, binocular vision, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, etc. But I know the lay person probably isn't familiar with a lot of this. Basically, 4D-thinking embodies the probabilistic approach taken to supersede binary thought. Ex: instead of using 0 or 1, a number between 0 and 1 is used. From this point on, my assumption is that our knowledge is truly revealed as a distinction between [true and not true] rather than [true and false] at its roots. This is a philosophical tenet that maybe not everyone agrees with. This explains our differences with the definition of "logic".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow View Post
How are human beings distinct from nature? Surely we are part of it. What exactly do you mean by nature? Just everything that isn't human, or just everything that isn't human that lives?
I would argue there are both internal and external "worlds" as part of our 3D-duality that are truly superposed when time is added to the equation (in 4D). I also would argue there are multiple levels of consciousness involved that brain chemistry knows next to nothing about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow View Post
In what ways is science the opposite of art?
Science focuses more on externality while art focuses more on internality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow View Post
You still really really need to define love as you're using it in this dialogue, why didn't you do that?
Love is ineffable.

"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?

Last edited by Prover; 28 Jul 2008 at 03:34.
Prover is offline   Reply With Quote