1 Topic by Insomniadmx (edited by Insomniadmx 2007-12-25 22:04:26)

  • From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Registered: 2007-12-15

Topic: An attempt at a breakdown of "things".

I cannot easily use words to describe my idea, so I'll use an illustration:
(Sorry, I couldn't help but throw some of my broken Latin in to rev up the mysticism.)




http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f65/InsomniaDMX/veritas.png









I believe there is a hierarchy that leads to absolute truth. I think this could describe it pretty well. This works similar to a graph of the forms that Uranium takes until it gets to a stable isotope of Lead: Uranium splits into an alpha particle and an isotope of Thorium. That Thorium splits into something else and an alpha particle: one product goes through decay again, and the other becomes irrelevant (I can't show you the graph, because I can't find it, and thus I have no source, so I'm not sure).

Where would the absolute truth be found on the graph above? Could it be where "Things" is? I'm sure that I've left things out, because I could fit a near limitless amount of information under "Things External," like an electron, cat litter, a Kahlua mudslide, a neutronium star, statistics of any said objects... and the definition of "Things Internal" is so damn vague, but... I still think that it's plausible.

The purpose of this train of thought is to find out a bit more about what makes up absolute truth. Study of ourselves and the world around us makes up the study of reality. Study of reality and extrareality together is the study of what can be imagined. We want to combine imaginability with unimaginability, but what could that make? Here's where things start to get weird: How do we imagine the unimaginable?

Look at it this way: A person can look at a hypercube flattened onto 3 dimensions and sort of understand it, but we aren't built with the ability to perceive that fourth dimension; we can only understand it when we adapt it to a way in which we can perceive it. If you live in a 2 dimensional world and see a drawing of a cube, you'd never really get it either. Through proportional logic, I figure that there is another dimension, two magnitudes higher than reality, one in which the imaginable combines with the unimaginable to form another dimension.




If we cannot imagine the unimaginable, how can we imagine a dimension an order of magnitude higher? What could possibly be unimaginable?

This is my question.

Insomniadmx's Website

  • Registered: 2007-07-06

Re: An attempt at a breakdown of "things".

If we cannot imagine the unimaginable, how can we imagine a dimension an order of magnitude higher?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps it already exists.  I suppose that being the case, the way we live now decides whether we move up to the next plane.

Absolute TRUTH is way beyond our next evolutionary step.  It is another topic altogether.

Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement.
----------------------------------------------------------
You have to believe in the impossible in order to become.

3 Reply by Insomniadmx (edited by Insomniadmx 2007-12-25 22:06:30)

  • From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Registered: 2007-12-15

Re: An attempt at a breakdown of "things".

The extraimaginary may exist, but I don't know if I'll ever know. It'd probably be the next step that humans would evolve towards absolute truth though.

I just think that If we kept going in this direction, we'd hit absolute truth.

Insomniadmx's Website

4 Reply by Spi (edited by Spi 2007-12-23 08:12:51)

  • Spi
  • Spi
  • arcane adventurer
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-10-17

Re: An attempt at a breakdown of "things".

If we cannot imagine the unimaginable, how can we imagine a dimension an order of magnitude higher? What could possibly be unimaginable?

From my knowledge, to imagine something of a 4th density concept (A 4th dimension) requires higher awareness. Maybe some experiences have to do that changes the way people would know to imagine. People with a 4th density awareness had their 3rd density meaning of time lost.

Q: (Barry) Are you a great distance from us in light years?

A: Distance is a 3rd density idea.

Q: (Barry) Light years is 3rd density?

A: Yes.

From Cassiopaea transcript saying distance is a 3rd density idea.

Indirect is like seeing an article explaining what might be. Direct is actually experiencing it for yourself so you are able to imagine it again.

Also, what experience can change (indirectly or directly) a whole different new color. For example, I know people who are able to see new colors by praying or smoking marijuana. They said there are infinites of new colors and you can see them with your mind's eye. Which is actually an interesting thing because deep down I always thought there were new colors that existed that human eyes never laid on . . .



Always keep in mind on those kinds of wild thoughts, because the thoughts could possibly be true.

5 Reply by Insomniadmx (edited by Insomniadmx 2007-12-25 22:07:25)

  • From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Registered: 2007-12-15

Re: An attempt at a breakdown of "things".

It is certainly plausible that "4th density" concepts are extremely related to the extraimagination that I drew out.


Here's a very interesting thought: It could be possible that beings that perceive mainly in a dimension a magnitude higher than us (those that perceive mainly with the 4rd instead of the 3th density) would perceive the universe as if everything was bumped a magnitude higher.





This assumption combined with the suggestions the "A" makes in the doc you showed, leads me to believe that as one goes a step higher in density, the significance of every dimension of perception in that graph would be bumped up a magnitude.

This theory would work like this: The Internal and the External things become irrelevant. "Things that are" and "Things that are not" become as fundamental as Internal and External were. "Things that could be" becomes the new Reality and "Things that could never" be becomes the new Extrareality. "Things" becomes the new Imagination (Imagination is the highest dimension of thought that one is capable of)

  Instead of trying to imagine what 4th density perception is like, I'm trying to define density by what makes one different from the other.


It only seems to work very well to a certain degree. Higher density beings perceive more distinct dimensions than lower density ones would because they look at the whole of absolute Truth with a higher resolution. My modified graph doesn't illustrate this very well though, so I'll be trying to come up with a much better one -- after more thought is put into it, it may come out better.

[hr]

This part seems to promote the concept of block time, a concept that I feel is quite a bit confusing, but would probably make perfect sense to someone who perceives at a higher density (if density is as I just defined).

Q: The future is simultaneous events, just different locales in space/time, just a different focus of consciousness, is that correct?



A: Yes...

[hr]

About the doc that you quoted Spi: The Cassiopaean being channeled/interviewed gives extremely good answers to the sometimes stupid questions that are asked. This makes it seem all the more credible. I still can't say that it's true though, but a valid counterargument is made when someone suggests that something "proven" true actually isn't, it just appears that way because of false precepts. If someone has ever rounded anything off at all when taking down a fact, then logic based on fact that can never be absolutely true. That logic definitely cannot be absolutely true if the fact is really false.

There is only one absolute Truth: The difference is how we perceive it. Colors are what we perceive when EM waves with a wavelength around 400 to 700 nanometers hit our eyes. Our brain, in order to distinguish colors of light, makes gradients for luminance and chrominance and interprets the type of light (wavelength and frequency are about the same thing) and amount of it and makes the picture that we perceive based on that. When you were talking about the people who perceive more colors through meditation or drugs, they were just perceiving extra colors; what they were looking at did not change. There are an infinite amount of colors, it's just where your mind makes the distinction from one to another.

This could be interpreted two ways:

1) There are a near infinite number of points on our color scale. There're 7 colors (ROY G BIV), right? No, go into a print shop and pick up someone's PMS booklet. You can mix 400 some colors of ink into several thousand distinct shades. Even the original colors of ink are much more precise than the 7 traditional colors.
In short...  Our issue is precision. (Probably not the interpretation you were looking for, but presented nonetheless)

2) There are colors that we can't imagine, let's use blarg as an example. Imagine blarg fitting between red and yellow. Can you? We can agree that a particular apple is red, but the color red as I see it may be different from the color red as you see it. My conception of red may look like your green. We still agree that the apple is red, because we're both looking at the same object. There are people that have genetic mutations that give them extra cone cells, they are able to see into low UV or high infrared. What color is UV? Ask them...
Here, our issue is perception.


(Thanks, I think you just helped me figure out a good way to explain what hyperimagination is)

Insomniadmx's Website