Hi Fredrick, I got your concept of the globe, when you you come to the cube, you introduce the element of fake art, does it mean that the 2D is projecting itself to create the 3D??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick  The way I perceive the directions is that there is some kind of doubling up going on that is self-contained within the directions (to some extent, the snake eats its own tail). While I am there all the way with you, Dipayankar, that reality is always based on the three directions, there is space for creating a copy of reality in a 2-directional mode that is fake/art, while there is no recreation possible at the 1-directional level (because there is no 1-directional level).
I think I can best explain the fields as taking point A and have a direction with a length to point B. Yet instead of seeing this as a static line, I only have the static point A with the non-static directional line moving around this spot A. In short, a circle with center A and radius of B. That is field One.
Field Two is also a circle that starts out with that same spot A at its center, and while the distance is the same as B, it is placed perpendicular on field One. So, we have A in the middle, and radii B and C perpendicular to each other, with B and C meeting twice.
I know that you can start to recognize the ball shape now, with two circles, one that is like the equator, the other like a meridian. Possibly, you may feel that a third field must be placed in this picture to complete it. However, the picture is already complete with just two fields. If we were to add a third field, it would still only be a second meridian, not something new.
While the fields can be considered static, the position to view the two static fields is not. So, if you want a meridian at a 90 degree angle, all you need to do is turn the globe along with the movement already delivered by the non-static directional line (of B) as described above. There is no newly created distinction between needing to turn the globe 90 degree, 45 degrees or 16.39 degrees; like a record Field One already contains the spin that repositions Field Two (and not itself). The basics have been covered by both fields already.
If I want to use the angles of the usual 3D, so not a globe but a cube as ultimate delivery, then just one square field would be 2D. Depth does not exist at this level, because anything that is experienced as dimensional at this 2D level is already fake/art. And that bring us back, I believe, to our common ground that reality can only be three directional. It is a conceptual delivery that cannot be broken down to a lower level of basics, except for the ability that we can conjure something on a lower level that is not really there (the dimensional movie, for instance). Therefore there is only a single reality, but is can get experienced in multiple ways and it may contain false images of reality.
If we take a single direction and describe it as a single direction then the snake eats its own tail. Because that single direction must already contain the three directions. The real direction (in 3D) has a real starting point and that starting point is by definition 3 directional. Reality cannot be broken down into three parts that by themselves cannot exist.
If we want to circumvent this and describe the single direction as a concept then we only need two directions. But remember that a concept is a false image (though often very beneficial); a concept is just a delivery of our reality that can exist within our reality, but is not reality itself.
Ultimate conclusion: to explain reality as containing parts we have to use parts that do exist; fields do exist. A single field exists on the condition that it is fake/art. And while we cannot put our teeth in it, it is there and we use these false images all the time.
Our quest is to understand the difference between what reality is and what our fake/art descriptions are of that reality. If we don't see that our descriptions are limited then we can easily get lost in details about something that does not exist. |