Thread: G to the De-tox
View Single Post
Unread 28 Jul 2008, 13:37   #16
horn
Registered User
 
horn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 115
horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: G to the De-tox

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
1. Who is horn? Or rather, why do you care about him/her?
ita IS A mEEEeeeeee


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prover View Post
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".
3D is a really bizzare term to use to describe a form of thought that you consider to be "dualistic", because dualistic thinking involves ideas that transcend the idea of the 3 dimensions we manifestly experience.

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:
Originally Posted by prover
I also would argue there are multiple levels of consciousness involved that brain chemistry knows next to nothing about.
Sounds interesting. The only thing i can remember in your posts (i skimmed most i'm afraid) that seems to fit the bill are love and art. Well the boys over at the brain chemistry lab seem to feel pretty confident that they do actually know something about love. Art is slightly more complicated. Let's have a look at what you had to say in relation to shining some light on the matter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
1. There is art: Why?

Nature makes its own art (as science suggests), objectively; we tap into nature to bring out its art, subjectively.
this is a good example of why your writing is bad. saying "nature makes its own art (as science suggests)" suggests to the reader that you think nature intentionally produces art through either its own agency, or the agency or whom/whatever created nature, and that this is supported by science. which is wrong. you then say we tap into nature to "bring out its art, subjectively". but what do you mean by this? do you mean your first sentence was just misleading and that you really believe our interpretation of natural phenomena as something with artistic properties as entirely subjective, or do you mean that those artistic qualities exist objectively, but that we intepret or appreciate them subjectively?

You could quite easily write a paragraph like this asking you to define pretty much every sentence you have written.



Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
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.
no, it doesn't. it creates an emotional response because we are inherantly dualistic beings who second guess and empathise with the intentions of the creator of the artwork.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
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.
This isn't really an argument is it. I could just replace the word love with hate in that paragraph and it would be just as convincing/worthwhile.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
Is Love not true?
not as you experience it buddy


Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
I. Summary

a + 1, b + 2, c + 3, ...
that doesn't make sense to me

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
Art ~ Love
Science ~ Truth
Religion ~ God
i assume the ~ means that the reason why the preceeding phenomena that exists, is because of the following phenomena?

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:
Originally Posted by prover
Love = Truth = God
IT'S A CONTINUUM!
horn is offline   Reply With Quote