|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: Identity is not bound to idea. |
  |
|
Guys, this 720 degree thing is very interesting.
I feel it boils down to right-brain visual thinking.
A zone where things are "seen" in 3D/4D terms. Holistically.
It's also a zone where the false "correctness" of left-brain thinking
simply don't apply. Instead, certainty crystalizes out of ambiguity.
I find myself tossing ideas out into the "space " of that zone.
Idea after idea. Angle after angle. Without judgement.
Then, if you let them, they arrange themselves into structures of solution.
And if that solution disproves everything you thought up to that point....
That's fine.
Identity is not bound to idea.
I like that! I'll say it again.
Identity is not bound to idea.
Cool.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nat
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| just0 wrote: | 720° IS just the start, theres plenty more learning/growing that needs to
be done and allowing ourselves to learn from mistakes is an important
part.
I had workmates that were much older than me say things like "young
and niave" as a kind of dig on my optimistic, enthusiastic attitude...I liked Fullers Moto at the opening of synergetics, "Dare to be niave",
it sums it up nicely IMO.  |
..but they never broke you did they ? 
Last edited by Nat on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: Bonus |
|
|
| Fintan wrote: | And if that solution disproves everything you thought up to that point....
That's fine.
Identity is not bound to idea.
I like that! I'll say it again.
Identity is not bound to idea.
Cool. |
Nice1 
I like that and there's a lot of truth to it, but what really caught my attention was
the wording, sometimes 'bonus' meanings just jump out and express a new way
of looking at things simply through words, which just happened here....
Disclaimer; this may not make sense
I-dentity and I-dea, the I-ness involved assumes that a singularity of an Individual
can exist without Otherness. Its that me, me, me feeling again. It's the Oneness or
Monoism of the singular 'I' and the I-dealism that has permeated deep into our language
which often confuses things quite a lot.
The 'U' of the U-nit and of U-nity.
The letter 'U' (as in you) has an interesting visual aspect in it's old german/roman form.
It's very similar to the modern english form but differs in that there are dots over each
of the vertical 'tips' of the U, this is very much like the dots over our lowercase 'i' only
in this case there are two 'i's joined together making a doubled 'i' into a 'U'. It's the
two 'i's that makes U-nity plural
The real In-dividual and the real I-dea comes only from the interaction with the otherness.
So in reality there is no singular 'I' in the In-dividual or in the I-dea, therefore the notions
of vanity, guilt or possessiveness in our interactions and experience is totally unfounded.
The words I-dea and I-dentity are only half the picture, they can only exist because of the
outside - otherness, the 'U' of Unity.
OK, thats enough philosophisticating for today. 
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathy
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Surfing The Waves
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about this one In-divi-dual or In divi(sion) duel  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marlin
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: On fields and the abundance of nature |
|
|
Great thread!
It's good to see BFN exploring the wave structure of matter. Here's an article which in my view seems to harmonize quite well with Buckminster Fuller's take on things:
| Quote: | Although the idea of abundance seems intuitively undeniable to us, it has been lost within the ethos of what has been “Contemporary Economics” for some time now: that is, Scarcity, whether absolute or relative. Indeed, we are beset by this idea, which is both input and output of social exploitation, hidden as one of Capital’s objectives, but imposed on us as one of Capital’s absolute imperatives (i.e. not simply an ideological “prop”).
The idea of scarcity goes well beyond the sphere of Neo-Classical Economics. In the 1960s, a libertarian anarchist wrote that he saw no evidence of overproduction because millions were dying of hunger in Africa. We might observe that what he was really doing was ignoring the evidence that we live in a world of contradictions. Of course, it is true that people are starving and it is also true that food is being destroyed by the ton –an ugly fact, but true. A fact, by the way, which Agnes Varda has portrayed admirably in one of her films, “Les Glaneurs et la glaneuse.”
We believe that this idea of scarcity permeates all disciplines –including the physical sciences.
Of Isaac Newton, Voltaire wrote the following:
“In fine, the better to resolve, if possible, every difficulty, he proves, and even by experiments, that it is impossible there should be a plenum, and brings back the vacuum, which Aristotle and Descartes had banished from the world.”
(Letter XV: “On Attraction”, c. 1778)
And so henceforth, emptiness replaced fullness? Doesn’t this tell us something about the direction certain minds were moving in just prior to the French Revolution? The wealth is there, of course, but must be wrenched from “nature’s” grip. The physical sciences seem still to be dominated by that type of thinking, but other, more utopian views have long been making themselves known around the fringes:
“Nothing, on the cosmological scale, is virtually everything. It is the home of all the invisible fields, rippling with the activity of every real force. Every kind of matter produces a field, the field all mesh in complex ways, often causing interference with other fields. Fields are the “stuff” of the virtual vacuum. A light particle is nothing more than a large interference in the electromagnetic field. Apart from interaction with matter of other fields a field will not be changed in the vacuum. It will not go away; it cannot. Fields are a fundamental part of the vacuum structure itself. Fields in their most quiescent state form the virtual vacuum itself. Even when everything that can be removed from a vacuum has been removed, the Higgs field remains. ‘Imagine the entire universe permeated with a constant magnetic field’. One need not imagine, for it is true. It is clear from experimentation that certain results appear that are not explainable without the presence of a field. The field consists of an infinite number of one-dimensional North and South poles in an incoherent state –incoherent due to the presence of a multitude of other interfering fields formed by other North and South poles, or particles or quanta. Thus the virtual vacuum is far from empty, far from nothing, it is rather seething with potential energy as the primordial powerhouse of everything in the universe.
(“Nothing is something: The Theory and Operation of a Phase-Conjugated Vacuum Triode”, Floyd A. “Sparky” Sweet , June 24th, 1988)” |
http://abundance.org.uk/not-such-a-bad-idea |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
heiho1
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had been waiting on a book on Tibetan Buddhism:
THE SECRET ORAL TEACHINGS IN TIBETAN BUDDHIST SECTS
by Alexandra David-Neel and Lama Yongden
[you can find it easily on abebooks.com].
Imagine my surprise while finally reading it this weekend and seeing the following quote [from among many great quotes]:
| pg 19-21 wrote: |
How is the phenomenal, tangible world represented in the Oral Secret Teachings?
The tangible world is movement, say the Masters, not a collection of moving objects, but movement itself. There are no objects "in movements", it is the movement which constitutes the objects which appear to us: they are nothing but movement.
This movement is a continued and infinitely rapid succession of flashes and energy (in Tibetan tsal or shoug). All objects perceptible to our senses, all phenomena of whatever kind and whatever aspect they may assume, are constituted by a rapid succession of instantaneous events.
Each of these momentary happenings is brought about by manifold causes and multiple conditions acting together. Here one should not think that the event is distinct from the causes and conditions. It is these which, together, constitute the event. Apart from them, there is no event.
This word event must not be taken in the sense in which it is understood in ordinary language, that is to say as meaning a fact of exceptional importance as when one speaks of a "historical event". Event here means "something which happens". These "somethings" arising instantaneously and in series, these rapid flashes of energy are sufficiently like one another during the series to remain impercetible to us, then suddenly occurs, in this series of moments, a different moment which catches our attention and makes us think that a new object has appeared.
This process is often explained by comparing it with the grain which remains apparently inert in the barn, then one day shows a germ, that is something differing from the grain. However, the inertness of the grain of corn was only in appearance. That which we saw as a lifeless grain was a series of combinations of causes and conditions, a series of separate instants among which occurred other "instants" which we saw as a germ.
Some people say that the germ is a transformation of the grain. The Secret Teachings do not seem to encourage this opinion. The germ, they say, exists in dependence on the grain according to the classical Buddhist-formula: "This existing, that arises" which is not to be understood as meaning that this is the father who has begotten that by a transmission of substance. This is only the occasion which rendered possible the appearance of that.
There are two theories and both consider the world as movement. One states that the course of this movement (which creates phenomena) is continuous, as the flow of a quiet river seems to us. The other declares that the movement is intermittent and advances by separate flashes of energy which follow each other at such small intervals that these intervals are almost non-existent.
As to the existence of matter which is motionless and homogenous, this is flatly denied.
|
Does anyone else find a striking similarity between this description of fundamental Reality [as opposed to perceived reality] and the discussion on the nature of space? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bornfree
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marlin
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: The universe hierarchy levels found in The Book Of Abraham |
|
|
| Quote: | Here are the equivalent names for the astronomical bodies mentioned in his text, related to my previous work:
Jah-oh-eh = Earth
Olea = Our Moon
Shinehah = Our sun
Floeese = Our solar system
Kokaubeam = Stars
Enish-go-on-dosh = Energy medium that powers the solar system hierarchy level with Sun at centre.
Kae-e-vanrash = Energy medium that powers different (15) solar systems with Sagittarius A at centre.
Kli-flos-is-es = Energy medium that powers Kae-e-vanrash hierarchy level with Oliblish at centre.
Hah-ko-kau-beam = Energy medium that powers Kli-flos-is-es hierarchy level with Kolob as centre.
Shinehah = Our Sun, centre of Enish-go-on-dosh hierarch level (the solar system).
Sagittarius A = Known as centre of Kae-e-vanrash hierarchy level (our galaxy)
Oliblish = Centre of Kli-flos-is-es hierarchy level (centre of galaxies)
Kolob = The heart of the universe, the main core, centre of Hah-ko-kau-beam, the main source of all forms of energy, God.
The 4 beasts with eyes (lights) and wings (motion) each in its sphere of creation, represent the 4 central cores found in the centre of hierarchy levels 1 to 4. Unlike the other cores, of which a plurality of them can exist, Kolob is unique and usually described as the residence of God. Unlike the other 4 cores, it is a single star whose motion is described as revolutions, that is spinning about its own axis, not orbiting around any other core. The fourth beast is Earth's spinning core. It does not require much imagination to conclude that as our earth expands (we have enough evidence for this) and therefore gets heavier, its core will radiate more energy, its continents will move apart, and the melted iron core will divour all the land into hot molten metal, matching Daniel's description for the fourth beast. With all this information, I can now refine the details set forward in my previous paper as shown below. |
| Quote: | Modern astronomy will agree with this model up to the Sagittarius A level. Beyond this hierarchy level, no one knows anything, even if most researchers would agree that they cannot exclude the possibility of the existence of higher hierarchy levels and that the highest known level could in fact be rotating about some yet unknown centre of the universe. Also, another interesting fact is the mentioning of the energy medium for each hierarchy level. Today, we call this in a generalised way by 'vacuum', but as described in many parts of my website, this vacuum is also known to be made up of energy itself. It is therefore obvious that the vacuum energy, or zero point energy, or the ratio of T/S for each hierarchy level is different for each level, that is for each level referred to as spheres of creation, and this supports my point that all known physical parameters which I showed to be based on ratios of T and S, vary with their position on the universe. One must stop and think how our modern astronomy and the whole science would change once we accept the fact that the speed of light changes quite abruptly while passing from one hierarchy level to the next. We are like fish viewing the outside world from under water. Not only the speed of light, but all physical constants we are used to know as 'constants of free space'.
Free energy from space, or better, Energy from Free Space
From the previous section, we can conclude that if a method is found to tap this 'free energy' or better 'energy of free space', then we have got a possible solution for the ultimate clean energy source - the vacuum. So, will dissipating this energy also change the universal constants with catastrophic results? The answer is definitely NO, as energy is never dissipated but just converted from one form to another. The easiest way to tap energy out from free space is by a simple resonant circuit tuned to the vacuum oscillations of this energy and matched to its impedance. This frequency can also be worked out as follows:
Free space frequency fo = 1/T = 7.4E42 Hz
Surely this tuned circuit will not consist of a lumped inductor and capacitor as we know them, but the concept should be the same. The tuned circuit could easily be formed out of an atomic structure such as a mass with special characteristics. A perfect example would be radioactive isotopes which are tapping in this energy and convert some of it into lower frequency radiation and heat. The perfect material should be very dense with its structure dimensions as small as possible. This explains why most dense (heavy) metals having atomic numbers over 80, start exhibiting radioactivity. Probably the most efficient vacuum energy resonant cicuit in our solar system is the sun, which is converting much of this energy as gamma radiation. Todays scientists see the sun emitting huge amounts of energy but they do not see the huger amounts entering from all directions at higher frequencies, though some of them are assigning such invisible energy to gravitons. After using up a part to make up the sun's mass, this high frequency energy reflects back at a lower frequency toward the surface, the energy is continuously absorbed and re-emitted at lower and lower frequencies creating the sun's own matter spherical standing wave, so that by the time it reaches the surface, it is primarily low frequency heat and light. The difference between the incoming energy and the resulting heat and light energy, simply equates to the sun's own mass! Again, we notice this concept is clearly present in Smith's translation for figure 5 - '...the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash' , which precisely states that the sun borrows its energy from the core of the universe, through the energy medium surrounding Sagittarius A*. Such downshifting of frequency requires a huge mass, and not simply a ball of hydrogen. Studies at the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Washington D.C. have indicated that indeed our Sun has a heavy metal core, read Prof.K.Oliver Manuel on Iron rich Sun. It is highly probable that our naturally occuring free energy converter (the sun) is made up of a highly radioactive, long half life heavy elements, and whose iron seems to be its main stable by-product, which guarantees its long life time. The sun is actually producing energy downconverted from the highest electromagnetic frequency range, we call gravity, and not from hot fusion! One should recall that the common or currently-prevailing scientifically-popular belief that the sun obtains its power from hot fusion is just a theory which at best is only speculative in nature, and no physical evidence shows that this theory merits any more credibility than other theories. The concept presented here and elaborated in my EMRP Gravity theory is a much better theory than the classic one proposing a sun being made up of an inexhaustable hydrogen mass. The fantastic thing about energy of free space, is that anyone can tap a non zero value of power from every point in space! |
http://blazelabs.com/f-u-free.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | heiho1: I had been waiting on a book on Tibetan Buddhism:
....Imagine my surprise while finally reading it this weekend
and seeing the following quote:
| Quote: | The tangible world is movement, say the Masters, not a collection
of moving objects, but movement itself. There are no objects "in
movements", it is the movement which constitutes the objects which
appear to us: they are nothing but movement. |
|
Boy were they on to the wave nature of reality eh?
| Quote: | There are two theories and both consider the world as movement.
One states that the course of this movement (which creates phenomena)
is continuous, as the flow of a quiet river seems to us. The other declares
that the movement is intermittent and advances by separate flashes of
energy which follow each other at such small intervals that these intervals
are almost non-existent. |
So they had two schools of belief:
Continuous: Corresponding to the "continuous tensive forces of Fuller.
Intermittent: Corresponding to the "discrete" compressive radiation of Fuller. So they were each half right! 
| Quote: | | As to the existence of matter which is motionless and homogenous, this is flatly denied. |
Slam Dunk. Wham. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 1. No mystery or wonder as to why the popular idea 'six degrees of separation' is half of 12?
2. It probably happens less than half the time that people are conscious of it, only because of the balance of people being blindfolded to that side of their consciousness.
3. What is the justification for equating Time & Speed of Light, as in the formula for Lightyear (LY) Distance Covered by Light in one (1) earth year = 9.463 x 10^12 km/sec^2 (= 2.99 x 10^12 x 31,556,874 seconds per 365.2416 days each solar orbit complete?
4. Can we represent Time in Scalar Wave form?
5. If we maintain the Lightyear Distance function, for calculations across the universe, and if it is not possible to approach that speed, and there is nothing faster than c, how do we 'see' in the telescope what we believe happened at this time in the past?
6. More to the point of this post again - is there any truth 'self-evident' in which to expose '1984' is then and now?
7. How can we express the concept of time in a wave form duality, if there is no coincident number in the gregorian?
Could there be 120 seconds in a minute, not 60? Or 120 minutes per hour, or 72 hours per day of 36 and 36, corresponding to the 720 degrees in two rotations around a circle?
8. What other variations might exist to obscure the clock that we want while appearing to use the divine clock?
|
I don't feel like that is something anyone should really seek to promote - that is another form of control through power, and entirely expected, with more confusion and intensity all the way thru the end of 2008. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: Article online - Topology of 0 |
|
|
I've just completed an article called 'Topology of 0', it relates
to the work of Buckminster Fuller and explains a recent arithmetical
discovery.
I've tried to keep it as simple and concise as possible, although
it might not seem that way at first glance.
Anyway, give it a go and see what you think, I'm open for critique.
Post comments here or e-mail justin_lawless at hotmail.com
Thanks to Fintan for putting it up on treeincarnation.com
and for helping with developing the explanation.
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6098
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great examination of a key flaw in classic arithmetic logic.
After reading it, you can see there's no doubt we must
reexamine the vital numbers 0, 1, and 2 --and their
relationship to each other.
Something else occured to me in looking at the graphic
you did for the article.
The lighting you used to illuminate the sphere, has
drawn a cornea on the surface of the cosmic eyeball.
And the backlighting you used highlights the area on
the inside of the "eyeball" on which light would fall.
 
All this, by the way, shows how the cosmic zero is not
closed, but must allow "light" to enter.
The vertical axis is akin to the rotational axis of Earth.
But before it has been tilted by just over 23 degrees.
Similarly, our eyeballs don't point up at 45 degrees, and
the "eyeball" can be rotated to align the horizontal arrow.
At the back of the eyeball is the fovea --an area of acute
vision. But it is not directly opposite the cornea. It is
displaced about 4 to 8 degrees to it.
I believe the angles involved here may help us to understand
why the earth is tilted at the angle it is, and the primary
relationships governing this Torque effect in perception.
I wonder what angle of illumination did you use in drawing
your sphere? What level of backlighting and of surface
reflectivity and/or illumination did you use?
Maybe your superconscious mind part was drawing a visual
Topography of Zero and it's relationship to light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Fintan
| Fintan wrote: |
|
Wow, Nicely spotted !!
| Fintan wrote: | I wonder what angle of illumination did you use in drawing
your sphere? What level of backlighting and of surface
reflectivity and/or illumination did you use?
Maybe your superconscious mind part was drawing a visual
Topography of Zero and it's relationship to light. |
LOL, I don't know the original lighting and oreintation angles on the sphere,
it was basically a blend of different images, so who knows, but like you say,
it's a godamn eyeball.
This angle of the light on the eyeball is really interesting.
| Fintan wrote: | At the back of the eyeball is the fovea --an area of acute
vision. But it is not directly opposite the cornea. It is
displaced about 4 to 8 degrees to it. |
Thats a brilliant observation, I never noticed that, it looks
to me like that precession principle again.
Just like the Precession of the earths axis is not in the same
axis of the earths spin, i.e. it's not at 180° to the spin.
Looks to me like the same principle is going on here with the
eye, the fovea isn't at a 180° angle to where the light is coming
in, it's not in a straight line, it's Precessed at an angle.
Yeah, deffinitely worth checking into some more, after all, only the eyes can see.
| Fintan wrote: | All this, by the way, shows how the cosmic zero is not
closed, but must allow "light" to enter. |
Speaking of which, the topology of these numbers is making some
interesting correlations to what you've hinted at. It's the 0 and 1
relationship.
If by second powering 0 we're talking about the surface, and a spherical
surface having both convex and concave (being 2), then third powering
gives us volumemetric or an interior relationship only, which would mean
that O³ would be 1, half of whats going on at the surface level. Sounds
counter-intuitive that you get less by multiplying three times but IMO
It fits because it's only dealing with the inside.
It also fits well with what we talked about with the compression/tension in the
balloon analogy, compression inside, tension outside, also the idea of the sphere
having a 'point' at it's centre and neither one existing indipendantly. Using those
terms the 1 can be thought of as being inside of 0, just like the volume of the 0
being 1. Makes you think about the words 1-nside, 0-utside in a new light.
Another aspect of the '0 sphere' not being closed, is this interesting point which
comes up in relation to the concept of the sphere itself. The greek definition of
a sphere says that the surface of a sphere is always equidistant from it's centre
point making it a perfect spherical surface, like an infinite continium. If that were
so, the surface would be completely impervious, in other words, it would divide
the entire universe into two and there could be no communication between the
inside and outside, they would be forever seperated. On the other hand, the spheres
that we see in nature aren't perfectly spherical they're made up of billions of holes
approximating a sphere. The holes make it like a spherical net, it's in this way that the
inside can communicate with the outside and turn itself inside-out. But when you
think about it, the convex and concave are essentially the same, they're just viewed
from different angles of observation.
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: Inside out! |
|
|
| Quote: | I've just completed an article called 'Topology of 0', it relates
to the work of Buckminster Fuller and explains a recent arithmetical
discovery.
|
Brilliant.
Rad.
Bananas!
Nice1!
Wish I had time to figure out what I mean, but your formula is sort of like 'Genesis' as math.
First thing He did is make the world by separating Heaven and Earth.
The only way to really create anything is to divide some nothing in half - then you end up with two somethings!
If only my landlord could appreciate such simple mathematical beauty.
The only 'abstract' concept that makes no logical sense is '1' -
And doesn't that make perfect senst too, considering how useless it is to multiply anything by 1. Even 1. Bo-ring. I'd rather do... nothing ... twice!
But your article suggested all kinds of wild and cool things like:
Being begins with division, or the act of making anything begins with a division of 0. Like 0 divided by 0 also equals 2?
Every multiplication is a simultaneous division, anytime verbs enter the picture.
Growing by dividing - cell division - holographic universe.
In out - as above so below - mirror plane.
Unity describes not the number zero, but a condition of the verb 'is'.
0 = isn't?
Or, zero is a state of undifferrentiated non 'verbing' and can only enter the 'verbing universe' through the process of division, creating the boundary of subject and object.
Conceptually, a 'one' state cannot exist, nor particpate in any verb related activity of any kind.
So, basically padre, you paper make me loco!
Tight pack, bro! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just0 wrote: | It also fits well with what we talked about with the compression/tension in the
balloon analogy, compression inside, tension outside, also the idea of the sphere
having a 'point' at it's centre and neither one existing indipendantly. Using those
terms the 1 can be thought of as being inside of 0, just like the volume of the 0
being 1. Makes you think about the words 1-nside, 0-utside in a new light. |
Another fantastic observation as my head explodes again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
