Thread: G to the De-tox
View Single Post
Unread 28 Jul 2008, 16:05   #21
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 View Post
No,
yes. the form of religion is called monoism. but the reason why you believe in such crap is because you have a dualistic world outlook and hence have bought into monoism to legitimise and formalise your belief in things like souls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
I thought it was pretty clear I'm a proponent of pluralism.
no. what's pretty clear is that you are trying to categorise everything as some tangential offshoot of love/truth/god. that isn't pluralism, that's reductionism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
You obviously missed a lot in skimming over the replies because I corrected the relationship as Love ~ Art. I use '~' to signify an implication/approximation. I try to not conclude anything about causation, and what I've mostly provided is based on correlations. It was clearly a proposition (or hypothesis) as well.
if the the sequence of words isn't used to imply causation, then why does your "correction" (i.e. you switching the words around) mean anything?

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:
Originally Posted by prover
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.
did you miss the bit where i asked you to define what they meant? you can use my suggestions of what they might mean as a template!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
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.
This doesn't make sense to me in any way. Please can you use one of the earlier listed phenomena to help explain via example what it is you mean. If i may pick one off the list, i would rather quantum mechanics. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
When transcending into 4D territory, which is relative to space-time,
do you actually mean relative to space-time, or just space-time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
we also see a paradox on a much grander scale.
what paradox?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
That is more so involved with a distinction we see between pluralism and monoism.
what's more involved with this distinction? the paradox?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
All the latest research in science is trying to bridge this gap with their very large telescopes and large particle accelerators.
is the paradox you're talking about quantum theory and general relativity? (that's what the guys behind the telescopes call it)
horn is offline   Reply With Quote