07-06-2011, 09:54 PM
I was wondering today, are plants closer to a social connectedness than 3D?
We know that 1D is elemental, but water is a powerful connected collective in actual existence, an ocean. A forest, a wild field, likewise show apparnet skill in relying on collective efforts, perhaps even less than what an ocean exhibits. The animal kingdom, while still connected, shows apparent less than a forest. Then we get to 3D, a point where we could exist alone, but the preference is to have at least one more, the other. 3D is almost like a pivot point of separation where, into 4D, we begin to act in collective connected manner.
Sorry, I left out the insect kingdom. They are much closer to the plant collectivity than animals.
Relevant? I was wondering if this contributes to our generally stronger emotion for animal flesh, because of it's more independent nature, closer to our independence than any other sub density level.
We know that 1D is elemental, but water is a powerful connected collective in actual existence, an ocean. A forest, a wild field, likewise show apparnet skill in relying on collective efforts, perhaps even less than what an ocean exhibits. The animal kingdom, while still connected, shows apparent less than a forest. Then we get to 3D, a point where we could exist alone, but the preference is to have at least one more, the other. 3D is almost like a pivot point of separation where, into 4D, we begin to act in collective connected manner.
Sorry, I left out the insect kingdom. They are much closer to the plant collectivity than animals.
Relevant? I was wondering if this contributes to our generally stronger emotion for animal flesh, because of it's more independent nature, closer to our independence than any other sub density level.