Thread: G to the De-tox
View Single Post
Unread 28 Jul 2008, 15:06   #19
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 horn View Post
that's funny because it's actually dualism that's fuelling your belief in adam and eve in the first place
No, it would unequivocally be monoism in the first place, as I ascribed to many times as "One". Even though I was using dualism for a simplistic approach at times (I made some errors and I explained as such), I thought it was pretty clear I'm a proponent of pluralism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn View Post
(i skimmed most i'm afraid)
...
sorry, i missed this bit.
You obviously missed a lot in skimming over the replies because I corrected the relationship as Love ~ Art, from being in reverse. 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. Also, it was clearly stated as a proposition (or hypothesis) based strictly on historical and statistical premises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn View Post
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?
I have painstakingly seen it. It's called a communication gap. It's exactly why I started at a foundation, as such, so you could follow along with my thought process. In not paying close enough attention, having skimmed over my responses, how are you helping the situation? It's not just a problem between me and GD. It's a universal problem between people who share different levels of sentiments, irregardless of intellectual ability (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.

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:
Originally Posted by horn View Post
not as you experience it buddy
Love is not true as I experience it? Here we've reached an irreconcilable difference. Love, not just sex, is the most sensational thing that exists to me. So I will stand on my experience of this truth. (Yes, the females are getting to me).

Last edited by Prover; 28 Jul 2008 at 15:57.
Prover is offline   Reply With Quote