It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Consciousness Becomes the Physical Universe

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by NorEaster
Metaphysics (my own definition, of course) is where it's all .ed, and reality will at least be basically understood to be real, objective, and experiencable by the human mind to a level that will give each of us a fighting chance to come to a reasonable understanding of what is real and what is delusion. Of course, the human mind will never be fully capable of accurate determination, but perception has its charms as well.

Reality is already basically understood to be real, objective, and experienceable etc. etc.


And yet, half of the posters in this forum deny the existence of reality as an objective, experienceable quantity. Go figure.



Where on earth do you get the idea I've suggested or encouraged some sort of mystical/mythical exclusivity?


The term "flatlanders" suggests exactly this. You called me a flatlander because I don't subscribe to the notions that the OP introduced, and I know what that term implies. That idea came to me in direct response to a post that you made in this thread, replying to the OP immediately after my own reply. Doesn't bother me, but it does suggest that you see yourself - and apparently the OP as well - as being delineated from folks like myself as a result of your enlightened view of the true nature of consciousness relative to reality as a whole.


Pointing to 3D for the 2D vantage point to contemplate is far from trying to create a velvet rope. You are creating your own velvet rope by denying what is right in front of you. What is the math (geometry) telling the Flatlanders? What is the math (geometry) telling the Spacelanders? Extrapolate upwards, follow the whirlpools, and voila. It's nothing incomprehensibly magical or exclusive and I will never claim otherwise.


3D, 2D, what are you trying to say?
What am I supposed to be finding by following "whirlpools"? Sacred Geometry? You don't really attempt to explain anything with your words, and that's the problem with trying to be esoteric and philosophical when detailing the nuts and bolts of reality. It ends up sounding like New Age trash, and not much like anything else.

And this is the velvet rope that I'm referring to. The inside information references. The jargon. The slippery metaphors that don't actually commit you to having actually asserted anything that you'll then have to defend or even further illustrate. Just worthless junk-babble that fills a post - or a book page - as if that's all that's required of a shaman or a teacher, as the student wanders off and tries to connect the mystery of it all to the mundane stuff that is scattered throughout the landscape of his/her own life. The truth is that 90% of these "students" never learn anything at all, and it's not because "many are called but few are chosen". It's because you people make sure they never understand you when you "teach". That ensures that you remain elevated above them.

If it was all a joke, and not really that important, then what the hell - have fun and be the transcendent whatever if it makes you feel happy, but the truth is that each one of us has to leave this material realm when our lives are complete, and what we learn here greatly impacts what we have to work with when we emerge from this "gestation" as the fully viable human beings that we'll each become. That means that it's incredibly important that we each get this stretch of reality as accurately figured out as we possibly can. What we learn here is what we'll each be building our own individual eternities on, for better or worse.



I agree fully that the information is the breakthrough, but sure... keep looking for someone else to attack. Notice in your effort to put someone else in a position of claiming authority, you descend into claiming your own authority yourself.


I have a very specific and extremely detailed package of information, and after 3 years of very aggressive vetting, I'm pretty confident of the veracity of this information. Some of it I vetted right here on this board, and because of the help I got here, I freely share what I can here for the community at large. If I attack, I'm not attacking people. I'm attacking the influence that their assertions might have on those who don't have the time, experience or self-confidence to do the hard work it takes to vet those assertions. And I never confront religious beliefs or specific devotions anymore, since I learned (while vetting my own information here) that doing so damages more than it enlightens.

What I do focus on are larger assertions - like the notion of primordial consciousness or infinite presence - since these are the most damaging errors, and set a person up for all kinds of trouble once they'd passed from here into the informational realm. Their vulnerability to deliberate suggestion becomes overwhelming.

More in the next post...




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by NorEaster
Metaphysics (my own definition, of course) is where it's all .ed, and reality will at least be basically understood to be real, objective, and experiencable by the human mind to a level that will give each of us a fighting chance to come to a reasonable understanding of what is real and what is delusion. Of course, the human mind will never be fully capable of accurate determination, but perception has its charms as well.

Reality is already basically understood to be real, objective, and experienceable etc. etc.

And yet, half of the posters in this forum deny the existence of reality as an objective, experienceable quantity. Go figure.

Exactly... isn't it cool?

Have you considered what it would be like if that weren't the case? Have you considered *that's the point*?


Originally posted by NorEaster


Where on earth do you get the idea I've suggested or encouraged some sort of mystical/mythical exclusivity?

The term "flatlanders" suggests exactly this. You called me a flatlander because I don't subscribe to the notions that the OP introduced, and I know what that term implies. That idea came to me in direct response to a post that you made in this thread, replying to the OP immediately after my own reply. Doesn't bother me, but it does suggest that you see yourself - and apparently the OP as well - as being delineated from folks like myself as a result of your enlightened view of the true nature of consciousness relative to reality as a whole.

I'm not "enlightened" per any sort of application you may try to use it. Otherwise I wouldn't be here swapping vantage points with you.

The term "flatlander" has nothing to do with exclusivity... and merely reflects a difference in points of views. Nothing more. A flatlander is observing from within one rule-set... a Spacelander is observing from another rule-set... a Timelander is observing from within another rules-set, etc. None of them have an exclusive on the truth and in fact... the Flatlander's perspective is just as valid as a Timelander's, but it is by simple mathematical necessity a more limited scope.

I wish you absolutely the best in your seeking of the vantage point of the truth that is most clearly able to be understood by you.

I have nothing to teach. I'm not trying to teach. I'm not trying to be obscure. I'm sorry you are annoyed by other methods of people communicating, but I know what works for me and people who can see from a similar vantage point, which is the only thing we have to offer via conversations such as these... our most honest account of what we see. I've heard thousands upon thousands of people who have thought deeply say brilliant things that didn't work for me, especially when I first heard them and didn't have enough common ground with them to make a connection.

If what I or another says doesn't click for you... then yes throw it away and keep seeking what does work for you.

You are finding enemies in the words that aren't there. You are biting hands that are reaching because they don't look the way you expect.

Enjoy your ride!
edit on 2012/7/24 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
We are all sharing our vantage points, and some don't shy away from sharing theirs with those who scream "I can't see what you see therefore you must be wrong!"... chuckling at the irony of them denying what they see, blaming them for some supposed claims of "privilege", and then screaming how the 2D view is what's incoming to 3D.


But what have you actually shared? In this thread anyway. What is the 3D view, as opposed to the 2D view? We "flatlanders" have no idea what you're referring to, so are you actually sharing anything at all? It doesn't seem that way. And I can be pretty aware of what's happening in front of me at times. What I've gleaned from these consciousness threads is that consciousness created everything (including itself, apparently) and that theoretical physics somehow proves this - okay, not that theoretical physics is admittedly anything more than physicists imagining what might be true (hence the term "theoretical physics"). Oh, and if a person doesn't believe this, then that person is a flatlander (suggesting that they are akin to the people who refused to believe that the Earth is actually round, as opposed to flat).

I'm going to assume that I have the basics covered.


Especially when they also say "I don't want to put in the work you did to see what you see, make it easier for me". You don't get good at mountain climbing by other mountain climbers making it easier to "do" aka "understand". We can only make it easier to watch others doing it. At best a smoother path can be carved, but less is understood about the mountain on that path.


And this mountain you refer to...is this the meditation regimen that some suggest is required? Or is it the grueling hours of YouTube video watching it takes to suddenly attain enlightenment? The meditation effort - that involves NOT thinking...right? And pushing all thoughts OUT of your mind. Okay, that pathway to wisdom seems a bit counter-intuitive to me, but again, as a flatlander, I'm somewhat hindered by my innate ignorance. To me, wisdom is achieved by way of actual application of knowledge within the arena of ongoing existence, and as a result of winning and losing life's contests, large and small. Not by emptying one's . of all thought.

As far as the YouTube videos, I've poured over dozens and dozens of the most celebrated enlightenment vehicles that exist, and I don't know...maybe it only works for the chosen people.


Here is the Mountain: We literally exist at multiple dimensions (or density if you prefer) at all "times" as one cohesive flowing field of energy. That lays the foundation for everything we ever need to know. Now we start figuring out what we're going to do with this information.

No hiding, magic, mystery, privilege, velvet ropes, etc. only recognizing the actual mountain and moving forward on learning how to climb that mountain.


um...that mountain doesn't exist. Energy is the result of changes in physical state. It isn't primordial any more than consciousness is. Don't get lost misinterpreting Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics (like most newscasters do) as evidence that energy is akin to God. We do not exist within energy. We are not energy. Energy exists, but it's not an environment of its own. It is not a contextual relationship between existential wholes - which is what an environment is.

You've embraced an imaginary mountain.


You are right, your view is incoming, and you are right, your perceptions are incomplete. You don't own all cameras taking snapshots of the truth. One person's "magic" and "mysticism" is another person's misunderstood science and (more efficient) poetic scientific descriptions.

/Best Wishes To A Fellow Being (I can alter the wave as many times as you like till you see past the divisive letters of communication and simply reduce to the heart of the communication)
edit on 2012/7/24 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


When you persist in wrapping details in metaphor and allegory (like your mountain of multiple dimensions and energy fields that defy specific definition) then you perpetuate mysticism. That's because what you're engaging in is what created the practice of mysticism to begin with. Hiding the truth behind veils of analogy that require an initiate to "do the hard work" to translate what you've created as a barrier between them and what you feel they should work for if they are to be deserving of. No different than the last 2000 - 6000 years of velvet ropes.

Like I said, the time is coming when there will be no more metaphors. No more allegories. When "knowing" won't actually exist anymore. The truth will be obvious, and it will be obvious to everybody. Not because anyone has changed, or become enlightened per se, but because the veils themselves will have been torn down forever.

If you've been following my posts, then you know what I mean.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
We are all sharing our vantage points, and some don't shy away from sharing theirs with those who scream "I can't see what you see therefore you must be wrong!"... chuckling at the irony of them denying what they see, blaming them for some supposed claims of "privilege", and then screaming how the 2D view is what's incoming to 3D.

But what have you actually shared? In this thread anyway. What is the 3D view, as opposed to the 2D view? We "flatlanders" have no idea what you're referring to, so are you actually sharing anything at all?

That you are currently experiencing a 3D state of being. There are 4D states of being, etc. It can't be stated any more clearly or simply.


Originally posted by NorEaster
And this mountain you refer to...is this the meditation regimen that some suggest is required? Or is it the grueling hours of YouTube video watching it takes to suddenly attain enlightenment? The meditation effort - that involves NOT thinking...right? And pushing all thoughts OUT of your mind. Okay, that pathway to wisdom seems a bit counter-intuitive to me, but again, as a flatlander, I'm somewhat hindered by my innate ignorance. To me, wisdom is achieved by way of actual application of knowledge within the arena of ongoing existence, and as a result of winning and losing life's contests, large and small. Not by emptying one's . of all thought.

How do you become effective at painting, by exploring painting. How do you become effective at being conscious... by exploring consciousness. And we in this situation, only really have our own and the reflections of others to work with. The mechanics are just the vehicle, it's the first hand experience that matters to consciousness.


Originally posted by NorEaster
As far as the YouTube videos, I've poured over dozens and dozens of the most celebrated enlightenment vehicles that exist, and I don't know...maybe it only works for the chosen people.

No, you just seem to want to make it really difficult.


Originally posted by NorEaster

Here is the Mountain: We literally exist at multiple dimensions (or density if you prefer) at all "times" as one cohesive flowing field of energy. That lays the foundation for everything we ever need to know. Now we start figuring out what we're going to do with this information.

No hiding, magic, mystery, privilege, velvet ropes, etc. only recognizing the actual mountain and moving forward on learning how to climb that mountain.

um...that mountain doesn't exist. Energy is the result of changes in physical state. It isn't primordial any more than consciousness is. Don't get lost misinterpreting Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics (like most newscasters do) as evidence that energy is akin to God. We do not exist within energy. We are not energy. Energy exists, but it's not an environment of its own. It is not a contextual relationship between existential wholes - which is what an environment is.

You've embraced an imaginary mountain.

And if something doesn't change, would it be perceived?

Is your chair not just energy in tiny eternally changing/flowing energy? Are we really needing to have a discussion about whether there is any actual matter vs just "light" in various patterns?


Originally posted by NorEaster
When you persist in wrapping details in metaphor and allegory (like your mountain of multiple dimensions and energy fields that defy specific definition) then you perpetuate mysticism. That's because what you're engaging in is what created the practice of mysticism to begin with. Hiding the truth behind veils of analogy that require an initiate to "do the hard work" to translate what you've created as a barrier between them and what you feel they should work for if they are to be deserving of. No different than the last 2000 - 6000 years of velvet ropes.

Like I said, the time is coming when there will be no more metaphors. No more allegories. When "knowing" won't actually exist anymore. The truth will be obvious, and it will be obvious to everybody. Not because anyone has changed, or become enlightened per se, but because the veils themselves will have been torn down forever.

Every word you use is a metaphor.

It can't get any less metaphorical than "you exist in more than just this spacial and temporal state you find yourself in". We each find our own ways of exploring that as best we can.

You are lumping me in with some supposed group of people trying to surpress truth, or have some resistance to the veils dropping. This is a strange stance, but whatever you see please express.

edit on 2012/7/24 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   


Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by NorEaster

Reality is already basically understood to be real, objective, and experienceable etc. etc.

And yet, half of the posters in this forum deny the existence of reality as an objective, experienceable quantity. Go figure.

Exactly... isn't it cool?

Have you considered what it would be like if that weren't the case? Have you considered *that's the point*?


I don't play at philosophy. Metaphysics isn't a hobby. This is difficult work, and while I love it, I love it as work. Not as entertainment.



Originally posted by NorEaster


Where on earth do you get the idea I've suggested or encouraged some sort of mystical/mythical exclusivity?

The term "flatlanders" suggests exactly this. You called me a flatlander because I don't subscribe to the notions that the OP introduced, and I know what that term implies.

I'm not "enlightened" per any sort of application you may try to use it. Otherwise I wouldn't be here swapping vantage points with you.

The term "flatlander" has nothing to do with exclusivity... and merely reflects a difference in points of views. Nothing more. A flatlander is observing from within one rule-set... a Spacelander is observing from another rule-set... a Timelander is observing from within another rules-set, etc. None of them have an exclusive on the truth and in fact... the Flatlander's perspective is just as valid as a Timelander's, but it is by simple mathematical necessity a more limited scope.


For the last couple centuries, it's been used as a derogatory term. You may want to not use it unless you intend to insult someone. Just a .s-up.


I have nothing to teach. I'm not trying to teach. I'm not trying to be obscure. I'm sorry you are annoyed by other methods of people communicating, but I know what works for me and people who can see from a similar vantage point, which is the only thing we have to offer via conversations such as these... our most honest account of what we see. I've heard thousands upon thousands of people who have thought deeply say brilliant things that didn't work for me, especially when I first heard them and didn't have enough common ground with them to make a connection.

If what I or another says doesn't click for you... then yes throw it away and keep seeking what does work for you.

You are finding enemies in the words that aren't there. You are biting hands that are reaching because they don't look the way you expect.

Enjoy your ride!
edit on 2012/7/24 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


I have posted many times that when I challenge a premise, I am actually posting for the lurkers, and not trying to change the mind of the poster that I am replying to. I suppose that this is another moment to clarify this again. For every poster, there are (up to) 50 lurkers who will read the thread and never post in it at all. In fact, if you check the board stats (on the forums page) you'll see that for every 500 users, there are generally 3500 guests that only read what we post. I post for the people who read, and never bother to comment.

I appreciate it when someone takes me on, and allows me the chance to examine a topic that interests me, or one that is central to the larger work that I've taken on. This is a very public arena, and while no one expects to be seriously considered all the time or even a majority of the time, if a handful of readers walk away with a new idea concerning the topic being discussed, then I feel as if I've used the time successfully.

Thank you for your time. I've enjoyed our exchange.


edit on 7/24/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/24/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I don't play at philosophy. Metaphysics isn't a hobby. This is difficult work, and while I love it, I love it as work. Not as entertainment.

I don't see why your work can't also be entertaining while you love it. We're in differently painted boats, but we're in the same river. That may be the game designer in me coming out, haha.



Originally posted by NorEaster
For the last couple centuries, it's been used as a derogatory term. You may want to not use it unless you intend to insult someone. Just a .s-up.

At some point the most accurate term is the best even if someone will initially perceive it as an insult. I'd rather the signal be more honest in hindsight than so gentle it is missed a. of time.


Originally posted by NorEaster
I have posted many times that when I challenge a premise, I am actually posting for the lurkers, and not trying to change the mind of the poster that I am replying to. I suppose that this is another moment to clarify this again. For every poster, there are (up to) 50 lurkers who will read the thread and never post in it at all. In fact, if you check the board stats (on the forums page) you'll see that for every 500 users, there are generally 3500 guests that only read what we post. I post for the people who read, and never bother to comment.

I appreciate it when someone takes me on, and allows me the chance to examine a topic that interests me, or one that is central to the larger work that I've taken on. This is a very public arena, and while no one expects to be seriously considered all the time or even a majority of the time, if a handful of readers walk away with a new idea concerning the topic being discussed, then I feel as if I've used the time successfully.

Thank you for your time. I've enjoyed our exchange.

I've come to the same conclusions as you about the reason for posting and learned that lesson a long time ago. Again different boats, same river, heh.

The beauty is most likely what each of us will say will resonate with different people who are at different points in their own exploration. If that inspires some additional exploration or question asking, then awesome. If not, we both have the chance to explore ourselves a bit more so always worth it.


Thank you as well... see you after the curtain falls.

Namaste.
edit on 2012/7/24 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Qi Maker
 


wow dude


couldnt agree with you more..! and guess what you sound just like my dad


star for thee



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by NorEaster

um...that mountain doesn't exist. Energy is the result of changes in physical state. It isn't primordial any more than consciousness is. Don't get lost misinterpreting Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics (like most newscasters do) as evidence that energy is akin to God. We do not exist within energy. We are not energy. Energy exists, but it's not an environment of its own. It is not a contextual relationship between existential wholes - which is what an environment is.

You've embraced an imaginary mountain.

And if something doesn't change, would it be perceived?

Is your chair not just energy in tiny eternally changing/flowing energy? Are we really needing to have a discussion about whether there is any actual matter vs just "light" in various patterns?


The chair is actually an event. Not energy. Then again, energy is an event as well. Reality consists of residual and dynamic information, and the actual instant of "now" that is happening over the span of existence that quantum physics has termed "the quantum" - even though each application of the quantization of action - or heat exchange or whatever is being examined - seems to be siloed for reasons that I ave yet to appreciate as being useful. The uniform and indivisible unit of activity has been proven, even though the event unit as the basis of material existence is still years away from being embraced. Still, that acceptance doesn't really affect the actual nature of matter and the sub-structure of material existence, does it.

That chair is what can be accurately described as a matrixed event trajectory (meaning that it is a confluence of very specific and defined dependable trajectories that exist as holons within the larger holon trajectory that is the full existence of the chair itself as an identified whole. Of course, between each individual trajectory holon is a graduation of holons that become the "building blocks" as described by traditional science (particles, atoms, molecules, elements, wood, steel, glue, leather, fabric) that also exist as matrixed event trajectories with their own progression of structural complexities that each maintains in service of the primordial existential imperative - Survival.

You see, reality is extremely simple, even if it is witheringly dense in its structural redundancy. And each trajectory that exists within each material manifestation exists until it ceases to exist. And then it's gone forever, with only the fact that it did exist left behind as eternal information. And it is eternal, because it'll never stop being a fact that it did once exist. Information has no half-life.



It can't get any less metaphorical than "you exist in more than just this spacial and temporal state you find yourself in". We each find our own ways of exploring that as best we can.

You are lumping me in with some supposed group of people trying to surpress truth, or have some resistance to the veils dropping. This is a strange stance, but whatever you see please express.

edit on 2012/7/24 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


As you can see, it can get much more detailed than it's been. I can go for 120,000 words on exactly how the simple event unit, and its symbiotic relationship with the unit cluster of information, that springs into physical existence as soon as that event unit occurs, lays the entire table for everything that exists and will ever exist. Including consciousness. And this is what I mean by the veils being torn down. The instant of existential genesis? Completely detailed as well. No more questions that can't be answered.

This is what the passing from the Age of Pisces is all about. Like hitting the over.s in a bar at 2:00 AM. A little blinding at first, but it's closing time and while you don't have to go home, you can't stay here. It's time to move on.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Biggest conspiracy known to man is that when you are told what you are inhaling and exhaling is oxygen... This ["Oxygen"] is god.

Consciousness, our ability to be aware. We tend to think it comes from us... but the argument is that if we are separated from this for 4 minutes... what's the first think you lose? Consciousness. Therefore consciousness does not come from you, it is a gift from god.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceLoveProject
Biggest conspiracy known to man is that when you are told what you are inhaling and exhaling is oxygen... This ["Oxygen"] is god.

Consciousness, our ability to be aware. We tend to think it comes from us... but the argument is that if we are separated from this for 4 minutes... what's the first think you lose? Consciousness. Therefore consciousness does not come from you, it is a gift from god.



The YouTube video notwithstanding, are you sure you want to actually suggest that molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and whatever else is floating around in the gaseous soup that we inhale and exhale each day are all, collectively, God? And that the evidence is that when we are prevented from inhaling this stuff, we lose consciousness?

We lose consciousness for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe a bullet to the brain is Satan separating us from God? Maybe a rock on the ground that is drawing our . rapidly toward it is an abomination to the Lord, since that too will cause the loss of consciousness? What about those incidents that occur (and they occur pretty often) when the air a person breathes has been poisoned by other gases? Surely, if oxygen is God, then it would not be vulnerable to being elbowed out of the way by cyanide or nerve gas, and it certainly wouldn't be party to delivering a biological agent (like Anthrax) that would make breathing impossible for a person.

Philosophy is fun, but not when you don't even try to be clever with your allegories.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The chair is actually an event. Not energy. Then again, energy is an event as well.

Agreed emphatically. We aren't as far apart as our language usage may make us appear "currently".

I'm confident our rivers will converge and it'll be a huge "relief"... and the edges of the puzzle pieces that appear to not fit will become obvious.


My only disagreement with your path, and it isn't disagreement just bemusement, is your idea that people need to know what you seek to navigate the informational realm.


That means that it's incredibly important that we each get this stretch of reality as accurately figured out as we possibly can. What we learn here is what we'll each be building our own individual eternities on, for better or worse.

You seek the structure you will need, and others may glean from it or not, but if you start believing you are going to find the "guiding light" for any vantage but your own, you are walking into your own temporary trap of "savior" even if it's a subtle one.

No "person" needs to understand the mechanics you wish to understand and if you think those mechanics are important at all, you're missing the entire point of "experience" in the first place. What we learn here will lay the foundation, for sure, but you can't begin to presume you know what a "better" or "worse" foundation is for another point of reference we call "Conscious Observer" to grow from.

The "event" of a perception from a perspective is the only thing that "matters" "in the end".

"This is a short Buddha." "This is a long Buddha." etc.

Have you ever considered the possibility that knowing too much about the details might be the weaker platform from which to start exploring the information realm even if it appears to be powerful now? Like a parent who gives a kid a whole twelve pack to drink so they get sick of it, you might be being "given" a "twelve pack" of understanding the underlying mechanics because "you asked for it", but there are more refined things to drink out there?

No matter how firm of ground you ever find yourself on, there is always "something else" which can be conceived which flips the whole thing upside down and requires re-defining everything you once stood on.

Thanks and salute!
edit on 2012/7/25 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join