Are we on the road to Damascus or what? Is this evidence that we are in Damascus? No.
Or, resonance perhaps?
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
It's funny, yours doesn't resonate with me.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
So there's nothing to back up the nifty little illustration you posted. It just looked kinda cool with all those words attached to it that sound deep, vague and mystical.
What is it that we determin from it? What predictions does it make? In what manner does it decsribe our existance in a way that we can test its veracity?
Just burn some insence, ring some bells and feel the vibe?
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
Okay, let's try this:
Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0
In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0
Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know?
Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 5
Schmalts = 0
In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 5 x 0 = 0
Yes, you missed something. Lack of a dimension is not lack of everything (i.e.: nothing)!
Yes, and without Time and Space and any other "dimensions" that exist above that. Which is to say, without the existence of existence itself, we would have "nothing" to measure.
Well, in effect I'm saying objectivity is the fifth dimension, i.e., the ability to understand and look at the first four dimensions, "objectively."
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Just incase anybody wanted to know the 10 dimensions that have been sofar named are as follows:
1. length
2. width
3. depth
4. schmalts
5. karkatoom
6. dingledorph
7. flegmarlbatros
8. dextromathoriphan
9. nu gersee
10. wookie-nipple-pinchie
There you have it. The top ten list of spatial dimensions. Back to you Dave!
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
But your using the word "dimension" in two mean different things. One usage is inappropriate in refrence to the accepted definition concerning spatial determination.
One definition of dimension could mean something like " one aspect of a thing or situation. The other is a measure of spatial extent or a mathmatical or physics term. Confusion abounds when you mix the same word for the two definitions in the same paragraph. I don't know if you did that intentionaly to imply some sort link between the two different ideas or by accident.
I would say that objectivity or the ability to understand the three spatial and one temporal dimension is not a spatial dimension in itself but rather a condition. It may sound poetic or mystical to use the same word for the two meanings, but it is confusing and dishonest. Your trying to imply a link where there is none.
Or, look at it this way (regarding the first five):Just incase anybody wanted to know the 10 dimensions that have been sofar named are as follows:
1. length
2. width
3. depth
4. schmalts
5. karkatoom
6. dingledorph
7. flegmarlbatros
8. dextromathoriphan
9. nu gersee
10. wookie-nipple-pinchie
There you have it. The top ten list of spatial dimensions. Back to you Dave!
Thinking is linear or, 1 dimensional.
Feeling is surface oriented (how things feel) or, 2 dimensional.
Substantial is definitive or, 3 dimensional.
Intuitive is progression (over time) or, 4 dimensional.
Understanding is objectivity (toward first four) or, 5 dimensional.
Last edited:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
See? your linking two disparate concepts."Thinking", "feeling", "substantive", "intutive", "understanding" are concepts and ideas not related to spatial dimensions. The term "dimension" in the diagram possibly means aspects or facets of something. To delibrately shift the definition of dimension in this particular usage from "aspect" to "spatial measurment" is dishonest and serves just to confuse. Please explaine to me how "feeling" is equated to "spatial measurement"?
This is very similar to what Jung came up with by the way, regarding the notion of two opposing pairs (thinking vs feeling and sensation/substantial vs intuition), which culminate into the fifth aspect, "enlightenment" (or wholeness). I'm merely suggesting a possible correlation between the two. Which does make sense, since these are the tools that we use to evaluate our environment.
And, when we begin to understand, yes, we become "enlightened."
Last edited:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
It is opposing pairs of concepts dealing with the mind. To apply it to spatial concepts is inappropriate as it causes confusion. That is unless you can demonstrate a link or correlation. What is that correlation? Saying there is one and winking your eye is not sufficient. Again it seems like intentional confusion.
Your talking gorganzola when its clearly brie time, baby!
I'll complete your list:
Dreaming is the dimension where you dream about 3 dimensional world. 6 dimensional.
Movies is the dimension of what all movies are made of. 7 dimensional
Numerology is the dimension where you get your numbers for your numerical values of all other dimensions. 8 dimensional. (Actually it's sum of all previous dimensions. But using my obscure and arbitrary rules of numerology I'll just assign it 8)
Circular is the dimension where you apply logic. 9 dimensional
Reality. Where rest of the humanity lives. 10 dimensional (possibly)
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
but, I think that from what we've experienced, Circular is the first dimension, as it does seem to be his basis of all arguments.
But tell me, does a circle have a beginning?
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Yeah, where ever I put the pen to the paper.
But you wouldn't have a circle yet, just a point. Besides, the circular dimension has to be at the "end" so you wouldn't accidentaly end up in reality. And that has to be so. Because I'm saying it is so. I wouldn't say so if it wasn't...
Tricky
Briefly immortal
This explain's a lot. Iacchus' thinking is no more than one dimensional. It never branches. It never rises above the plain.
Um... is there such a thing as half a dimension?