News:

One of our core values:  "THEY REFILLED MY RITALIN AND BY THE WAY I WANNA EAT YOUR BEAR HEAD."

Main Menu

3 Dimensional thinking.

Started by Adios, June 12, 2007, 07:05:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Adios

This is a thought in infancy. I was watching television the other night and this thought kept pulling at me. The screen is viewed as single dimensional. I began reflecting on how much of real life we view as single dimensional. We all do it. Much of the time when we should be trying to see the depth we just skim over the picture with our eyes. The details are in the layers. Almost all situations are fluid, ever changing, always presenting a different picture. This is why our perceptions are always in flux. This is why the walls of our prison are not static. For every detail we actually do perceive, and for every detail we fail to perceive, something is altered whether we are are aware of it or not.
Every time we 'see' something that awakens a new idea, it also underscores the fact that we are only skimming the surfaces of possibilities. How many are undetected? How many are so obvious and missed that when we finally do see them it is literally a blood rush to the brain, and often many doors open simultaneously. When this happens does our cell expand, shrink, or is it just altered? Or is it possible for all three contradicting terms to happen at the same time? Quantum mechanics would suggest it is indeed possible for all to occur at the same time. See? Another conundrum. Another illustration of taking the time to peel the 'visual' layers away and see the full depth of the picture. Or is this yet another illusion?

Thought should be done in the Free Radical style when possible. No preconceived ideas, no restrictions based on teachings. And I suppose this is the real challenge. Fiction writers have a leg up on us in this. Remember, Buck Rogers was once considered silly fantasy. Once. When I was a child it was a joke that a man was going to walk on the moon. While 1984 was prophetic in actuality, it was intended as fictional warning. What this all proves to me is that if we can imagine it, we can do it. The one million dollar question is what SHOULD we be imagining? What kind of Free Radical thoughts should we be allowing to tear through the conditioned mass we call a brain? How can we develop the ability to let our fettered minds go free? How do we train our thoughts to be unfettered? Could we stand the consequences of such a thing? Would we prove ourselves right or wrong? Or would we realize that none of it matters? It has been proven that reality is fleeting and conceptions have to be changed as knowledge is gained. I wonder what reality this thought process would produce. It seems it is worth a shot, what do you think?

LMNO

[pedantic]
The TV screen is more two-dimensional than one.
[/pedantic]

Other than that, I like where you're going with this.

I'd like to see more about the constantly shifting walls based on what we're seeing, and what we ignore.

Also, before you get in too deep with the quantum physics, remember that this is all metaphor.  Anything is possible, you don't necessarily have to go looking for real-world confirmations.

Cramulus

Creative think tanks usually encourage wild "buck rogers" style ideas. Even if they're not practical themselves, they point in a direction we'd like to be moving.

This is good stuff - can you expand a bit on the "Free Radical" style?

Adios

Thanks guys, I will work on this in a bit. LMNO I wasn't about to go too deep into the quantum sciences, that would just detract, and you're right about the screen being 2 dimensional, I was just rushing to get the idea down before it slipped away. And expanding on the ever shifting walls is perfect.

Professor, I will also try to expand on the 'Free Radical' thought process. The way I want to describe it is a thought that has no anchor, no grounded conceptual point of origination, thus allowing the thought the freedom to be open to any and all alterations, without a clearly defined point of conclusion.

Any ideas as to defining any of this is welcome, if you think it's worth it, it can become a community project.

Darth Cupcake

Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2007, 05:01:25 PM
Professor, I will also try to expand on the 'Free Radical' thought process. The way I want to describe it is a thought that has no anchor, no grounded conceptual point of origination, thus allowing the thought the freedom to be open to any and all alterations, without a clearly defined point of conclusion.

Tossing in my two cents... I think it would be better to think of the 'free radical' as having no set destination, and no limits on the directions it can go. Simply by existing, it has some conceptual point of origin. However, don't limit where it can go--think of the 'free radical' as a seed, maybe, from which a plurality of different viewpoints can grow. I agree with the idea of it being open to any and all alteration & without a clearly defined point of conclusion. I think that's some good stuff. But rather than thinking of it as being without a point of origination, think of it as a point of potential origination for an infinite number of potentials.

Did that make sense? I am not always good at expressing ideas.

I like what you've got going here.
Be the trouble you want to see in the world.

Adios

Bad wording possibly on my end, by no point of origination, I meant not coming from known/accepted/previously beaten down paths. Most thinking is influenced by what we already know. My definition of 'Free radical' thinking would be just the opposite. And yes, by nature it would be open to a multiplicity of opening directions.

LMNO

Metaphor stretching:  In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.


Discuss.

Darth Cupcake

Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2007, 05:13:15 PM
Bad wording possibly on my end, by no point of origination, I meant not coming from known/accepted/previously beaten down paths. Most thinking is influenced by what we already know. My definition of 'Free radical' thinking would be just the opposite. And yes, by nature it would be open to a multiplicity of opening directions.

Cool. That sounds good to me. I just like to poke at things even when I suspect that what I'm getting at is what you were getting at, we can never be sure where these things will go.

So again, I like what you've got going here.
Be the trouble you want to see in the world.

Cain

Quote from: LMNO on June 12, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Metaphor stretching:  In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.


Discuss.

Cancer is just a process whereby a cell, for whatever reason, fails to replicate its information properly, causing a mutation.

Do you really want to propagate society, or do you want to encourage mutations, even at the risk of destroying the societal superstructure?

Adios

Quote from: LMNO on June 12, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Metaphor stretching:  In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.


Discuss.

True, but cancer already exists, in society as well as in the body. But I will agree not all free radicals are going to be good, just as all are not bad. Splitting atoms turned out to be a really bad idea, ask Japan.

Darth Cupcake

Quote from: Cain on June 12, 2007, 05:20:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 12, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Metaphor stretching:  In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.


Discuss.

Cancer is just a process whereby a cell, for whatever reason, fails to replicate its information properly, causing a mutation.

Do you really want to propagate society, or do you want to encourage mutations, even at the risk of destroying the societal superstructure?

:mittens:

Indeed!
Be the trouble you want to see in the world.

Cain

Actually, I worded that somewhat callously, given LMNO's situation.

Better way:

Cancer is a cell which is considered sick, because it interferes with a healthy body.

But what if the body is already dying from other problems, in the first place?  Cancerous cells are mutations, and while all cancers are mutations, the opposite is not true.  A mutant cell may benefit the body.  It may only stave off the process of dying, or it may actually help heal the body and make it work in better ways.

Thats a far better analogy, I feel, especially because it takes into account that some mutants may accidentally help improve an evil system.

Darth Cupcake

Quote from: Cain on June 12, 2007, 05:54:14 PM
Actually, I worded that somewhat callously, given LMNO's situation.

I forgot about LMNO's situation :oops:

I still like your point, though.

Quote
Do you really want to propagate society, or do you want to encourage mutations, even at the risk of destroying the societal superstructure?

Damn fine line there. I'm making note of it.
Be the trouble you want to see in the world.

LMNO

Don't worry about my situation.


My dad has superpowers.


He can kill a man just by standing next to him.




LMNO
-imagine the playground arguments with that one.

Cain

:mittens:

I still feel the second one is better, however.  Analogy is closer, and its more subtle (because a mutation can help prolong the sickness, IOW be co-opted).