-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
other dimensions?
- Thread starter Virola78
- Start date
Aleph Omega
Rising Star
Interesting stuff. I've heard a lot of other people use the Flatland analogy (I think McKenna and Robert Anton Wilson) to talk about UFOs and higher dimensional beings or spirits.
This makes a lot of sense to me too. It's like when I'm on Spice the world becomes more "real," not to mention a lot weirder. Perhaps your mind is somehow perceiving other dimensions. Then when you come back, there is really no way to explain it at all. It's hard to even describe. Much like the flatlander square must feel.
This makes a lot of sense to me too. It's like when I'm on Spice the world becomes more "real," not to mention a lot weirder. Perhaps your mind is somehow perceiving other dimensions. Then when you come back, there is really no way to explain it at all. It's hard to even describe. Much like the flatlander square must feel.
The other thing is that the flatland/hypercube-translation examinations seem to address the appearance of morphing shapes and swirling fractals, at least to my mind. I mean, the manner in which the human brain could actually perceive and interpret a hypercube (at least in my conceptualization) strikes me as having to be very similar to the types of undulating shapes and patterns encountered on a spice trip. The most awesome aspect of the trip is the fact that the 4th? dimension becomes comprehensible, albeit at the cost of a loss of 3-D perception. Even if it's not the 4th dimension, whatever rules govern that place are unquestionably at odds with what we are accustomed to seeing in waking 3-d reality and to encounter such space or entities from such a space without the aid of spice would seem to potentially be very similar to an inhabitant of flatland encountering a 3-d visitor...
Aleph Omega said:
Exactly. That is what made me think about it.
The seond link posted shows a transparent tesseract (4 dimensional cude). But if it was not transparent, then it would be an even more strange object to see. And if we could only see a slice of the moving non-transparent tesseract, then it would be even more puzzling. In a relatively simplistic way (the basic form is a simple cube) it would behave very much like the morphing geometric things that start appearing to me when im bemushroomed.
Then one more thing. When I am on my way to mushroom hyperspace, I always get this feeling of being pulled. And at the same time things start melting and morphing. Is my consciousness expanding or 'stretching' into other spatial dimensions? When I look at something lets say an ordinary cube. Then I will see three dimensions. Uhm ... wait. Three? Not really. Im seeing 2 dimensions, and my mind seems to 'correct' for the 3rd dimension. As if the 3rd dimension is a calculation. We are seeing shadows, and we know (we agreed on) they represent 3 dimensions. We know about three dimensions, which we can literally move into them. Tried and true. But we can not really see the 3rd dimension.
If we can calculate the 3rd dimension. Why shoulnd't we be able the calculate 4th dimension and integrate it into what we see? The computer can do it, and show us the shadow of the tesseract.... The only thing is that we can not move into it, like we can go literally into the 3rd. When I am flying about on mushrooms, the idea of multiple dimensions make real sense to me. Those dimensions are just superimposed and partly integrated on/into my new view of reality, giving me very complex and ever morphing view of what is going on. Superimposement and partial integration would be an explanation for what I am seeing at such a moment.
Goodmorning my fellow flatlanders.
I've always thought it must have something to do with light. I tried to think of how a 2D object could exist in a 3D world but I was stumped. The only way it could remotely be possible is if it was a shadow. You can use light to project a shadow of a cube for instance. Sure you can draw a square on paper, but the ink you use has a height, width, and depth at a microscopic scale. To my knowledge a shadow has length and width, but no depth. The problem is that you can't really "touch" a shadow, only affect it's appearance.
Dunno.
Dunno.
Virola78 said:
Calculation and integration are two very different things. As you pointed out, the computer shows us the shadow of the tesseract, which is the tesseract translated into a lesser dimension. This is not pure integration but an interpretation from which we attempt to extrapolate a concept of the tesseract in 4D and then attempt to integrate that.
For example, when a flatlander sees a shadow a 3d object (as say, a ball) creates, it appears as a wall (in tis case a circular wall). Having no concept of what the hell "up" or "down" on a vertical axis is, the flatlander has no way of extrapolating the 3d shape of the ball from the shadow he is presented with.
‘Calculation and integration are two very different things. As you pointed out, the computer shows us the shadow of the tesseract, which is the tesseract translated into a lesser dimension. This is not pure integration but an interpretation from which we attempt to extrapolate a concept of the tesseract in 4D and then attempt to integrate that.
For example, when a flatlander sees a shadow a 3d object (as say, a ball) creates, it appears as a wall (in tis case a circular wall). Having no concept of what the hell "up" or "down" on a vertical axis is, the flatlander has no way of extrapolating the 3d shape of the ball from the shadow he is presented with.’
When you look at the floor and then look away. You can still have an image of the floor in your head. Then imagine a ball on the floor in your head. This ball is now integrated into that view of the floor. Or interpreted. I will let you be the judge on that ; ) Maybe shapes are first interpreted by the brain (mind?), and then integrated into the image (view, picture)?
‘The other thing is that the flatland/hypercube-translation examinations seem to address the appearance of morphing shapes and swirling fractals, at least to my mind.’
Also to my mind. The flatlander is looking at an apple that is morphing.
‘I mean, the manner in which the human brain could actually perceive and interpret a hypercube (at least in my conceptualization) strikes me as having to be very similar to the types of undulating shapes and patterns encountered on a spice trip.’
Yes puzzling isn’t it?
About the patterns. They represent more complex (array of) 'objects', or 'information'?
A cube is a simple object to play with, to get an idea of spatial dimensions. Even the tesseract is relatively simple. But a view of a 4th dimension, filled with lots of 4D objects, would appear as very complex. Like morphing patterns? If you look at a still water, you can see the reflection of a tree that is growing on the other side of the water. The picture of the tree is very clear, the water is not moving much. But now you throw some pebbles into the water. There will be ripples. The reflection of the tree is morphing. But still, when you look at the morphing reflection of the tree, you know there is a real tree on the other side of the water. And you know that tree is not morphing. And it probably has some bird nests in it somewhere. And behind that tree grow some other plants, next to those plants there is a road etc. The reflection in the water is in this way representing a glimpse of a complete reality.
So back to the patterns. Are they like the reflections in the water? Are they representing a dimension (reality) that is transcribed (coded) in some strange way? When tripping I can sometimes melt into the patterns (become part of), and this is when most revelatory visions appear. Perhaps in this progressed state of altered consciousness state the patterns have been transcribed (decoded) fully and are now manifesting themselves as these visions. The visions, messages, lessons, places, entities, meaningful symbols, gifts, information... whatever, they were there all along in the form of the patterns that kept on unfolding as the mushroomtrip progressed?
For example, when a flatlander sees a shadow a 3d object (as say, a ball) creates, it appears as a wall (in tis case a circular wall). Having no concept of what the hell "up" or "down" on a vertical axis is, the flatlander has no way of extrapolating the 3d shape of the ball from the shadow he is presented with.’
When you look at the floor and then look away. You can still have an image of the floor in your head. Then imagine a ball on the floor in your head. This ball is now integrated into that view of the floor. Or interpreted. I will let you be the judge on that ; ) Maybe shapes are first interpreted by the brain (mind?), and then integrated into the image (view, picture)?
‘The other thing is that the flatland/hypercube-translation examinations seem to address the appearance of morphing shapes and swirling fractals, at least to my mind.’
Also to my mind. The flatlander is looking at an apple that is morphing.
‘I mean, the manner in which the human brain could actually perceive and interpret a hypercube (at least in my conceptualization) strikes me as having to be very similar to the types of undulating shapes and patterns encountered on a spice trip.’
Yes puzzling isn’t it?
About the patterns. They represent more complex (array of) 'objects', or 'information'?
A cube is a simple object to play with, to get an idea of spatial dimensions. Even the tesseract is relatively simple. But a view of a 4th dimension, filled with lots of 4D objects, would appear as very complex. Like morphing patterns? If you look at a still water, you can see the reflection of a tree that is growing on the other side of the water. The picture of the tree is very clear, the water is not moving much. But now you throw some pebbles into the water. There will be ripples. The reflection of the tree is morphing. But still, when you look at the morphing reflection of the tree, you know there is a real tree on the other side of the water. And you know that tree is not morphing. And it probably has some bird nests in it somewhere. And behind that tree grow some other plants, next to those plants there is a road etc. The reflection in the water is in this way representing a glimpse of a complete reality.
So back to the patterns. Are they like the reflections in the water? Are they representing a dimension (reality) that is transcribed (coded) in some strange way? When tripping I can sometimes melt into the patterns (become part of), and this is when most revelatory visions appear. Perhaps in this progressed state of altered consciousness state the patterns have been transcribed (decoded) fully and are now manifesting themselves as these visions. The visions, messages, lessons, places, entities, meaningful symbols, gifts, information... whatever, they were there all along in the form of the patterns that kept on unfolding as the mushroomtrip progressed?
Here you have an example. Look at the water. Morphing patterns representing a glimpse of another reality not?
www.venosa.com
took it from another thread.
The link was originally posted by Jorkerst.
Home | www.venosa.com
This is the home of Robert Venosa, his timeless art, his life and artisti inspirations.
took it from another thread.
The link was originally posted by Jorkerst.
But you can't add an imagined ball to a floor if you have no concept of what a ball is because you don't comprehend depth, the third dimension. You've confused my hypothetical, in which a 2-dimensional resident is attempting to extrapolate a 3-dimensional object and integrate it into his 2-dimensional reality from the two-dimensional shadow it casts into his plane of existence. You're example is not what I was talking about. Your example, to express what I was getting at, would require you to imagine a tesseract on the floor you just looked at and, in your example, you would be integrating a shadow (your imagined tesseract), which is not the object, but a translated representation of the object, so this is very different from what I was saying...Virola78 said:
SnozzleBerry said:
You are right, the flatlander cannot imagine a ball on the floor. He would see only the shadow, or a circular wall. That why I asked you and not the flatlander to imagine a ball on an imagined floor. Then you will have a ‘view’ or image of the ball integrated in that view. That is what I meant when I used the word ‘integration’.
The flatlander has no way of knowing the circular wall (as in your example of the ball appearing in the 2D world) is part of a structure that is also present in another (3rd) dimension. He is however able to interpreted this new dimension when the balls is in motion (up-down). He is able to see the circular wall becoming bigger and smaller in diameter. If our fellow flatlander has got imagination, he will now ponder the possibility of another dimension… (because he does have an understanding of ‘spatial dimension’)
Anyway I am trying not to get confused by semantics. Which is always a problem when describing and discussing something complex. I am not stupid, I even understood some of the math I was taught at school, but I am not THAT smart. So plz forgive me if I still do not get what you are pointing out. Sorry to say I do have my limits.
What I was trying to say in my first post, is that when I am tripping there is a distorted view of normal everyday vision. And I am trying to figure out what is causing these distortions. Are the distortions (and complex patterns) the result of the correction the mind applies? Is the mind correcting for input from another dimension? Or is it just the mechanics of vision that are screwed by the psilocin that is working my serotonin receptors?
Let’s say we are perceiving (visually) in two ways 1) through our normal eyes (normal everyday vision) and 2) through our inner eye (by which you can see the results of fantasy, memory and so on). Could it be our inner eye is perceiving some other frequency (‘background noise’) when we are tripping? We are certainly not seeing only our normal everyday reality. There seems to be some other input, coming from somewhere. And this new input (or perhaps it is always there in the form of ‘background noise’ ) is superimposed onto or integrated into or onto our normal everyday vision.
Like when I am tripping the two vision are merging (melting) into 1 vision (view of reality). But the underlying mechanism (that interprets normal everyday visual input, so to have a normal everyday view of the world around us) is having trouble when it is forced to deal with the vision of the inner eye. And the mechanism start correcting, resulting in stuff morphing and melting all over the place!!
The mechanism is putting the other frequencies (as perceived by the inner eye) into the normal everyday vision. The two visions are communicating. And this can be facilitated by switching of the light, because the normal everyday vision needs light. In the dark the vision of the inner eye (indeed the cev’s) start becoming more clear.. The superimposing and integrating will be more easy because the normal everyday vision is less dominating (in darkness). There is simply less to see for the normal everyday vision, because there is less light. In the darkness (lights off or eyes shut) the vision of the inner eye are becoming more dominant. In the darkness the clear cev’s start appearing as clear oev’s.
Pfff starting to get complicated again. I really need to find a way to describe it in some clear and organized way. In time I will get a firm grip on it. Till that time I will be puzzling an trying to prevent myself from drowning in semantics.