Tesseract Life, Tesseracting, a Theory by Varde
The universe is a Tesseract Life-Form, the shape is the modus operandi.
We exist as tesseract-life(one’s and many) in a cube(program), and the cube is tesseracting(becoming civilization; advancing).
A picture of a tesseract is always from an angle that cannot be rotated. A tesseract cannot be compiled in a comprehensive way but can be anointed(I e. selected/named).
I noticed similar logic studying type of ordinary sense frames of reality; when walking the streets, perceiving frames of an ordinary nature(such as houses near roads, etc.) I registered a correlation between these frames and tesseract nature.
Ordinary frames are experienced from an angle that cannot be rotated but I can manoeuvre around them, to perceive from different angles.
Houses, roads and other tech-the-like, are non-living, thus, do not justify my theorum; in the next paragraph, we assess the animal kingdom.
Animal experience is always of one(a conscious vessel) with many others(sub consciously, conscious vessels), but a barrier exists between. Animal eyes do not sense consciousness of another animal.
In the tesseracting program-cube, which is reality to an animal, is witnessed many other animals, of whom act as tesseract-life.
The opposite tesseract, female gender – the many – and the male key, consciousness. Many consciousnesses, that I’m subconsciously alert to and aware of, are united with myself. I posit that this occurs inside a cube-field; a cube-field that’s programmable.
A cube can be rotated – perceived from all angles – we can be concise. The nature of a cube is perfect for tesseract-life. It also allows a tesseract reality to tesseract; tesseracting.
The nature of a tesseract as described before, is like this continuum. A conscious mind, or rather what we know about it, can only be understood at one angle, and never rotated. This frame – this modus operandi – is repeating and consistent.
I walk down the street sensing ordinary data, per se, men working on houses. There is more to this data than meets the eye; though I cannot confirm, I presume that they experience conscious mind. Therefore, I posit that consciousness – the spirit – is a tesseract(external perception, is angular, and forfeit; internal perception, ineffable and numb).
Given that, and adding civilization into the mix, I can see that the cube-program is tesseracting. Consciousnesses project things in their likeness, and construct what’s useful to them – resulting in an unconscious abstraction of the conscious.
For example, a house is a reflection of man’s needs, and it is also like man(conscious vessel). It stands, and accepts the light of others; it contains power, and can reject data depending on how apt it is.
In the manifold of it all, the tesseract-life-form with the tesseract-life-form, there is a continuum, and progression. Civilization advances, reality perpetuates and life is organic.
To conclude, I believe I’ve provided enough necessary data involved in my observations to warrant good discussion. I ask that debates against me are forethought, regarding specific and all data I’ve produced. The main argument is that tesseracts can only be sensed at one angle at a time, and this relates to reality – as experienced from a conscious vessel.
We exist as tesseract-life(one’s and many) in a cube(program), and the cube is tesseracting(becoming civilization; advancing).
A picture of a tesseract is always from an angle that cannot be rotated. A tesseract cannot be compiled in a comprehensive way but can be anointed(I e. selected/named).
I noticed similar logic studying type of ordinary sense frames of reality; when walking the streets, perceiving frames of an ordinary nature(such as houses near roads, etc.) I registered a correlation between these frames and tesseract nature.
Ordinary frames are experienced from an angle that cannot be rotated but I can manoeuvre around them, to perceive from different angles.
Houses, roads and other tech-the-like, are non-living, thus, do not justify my theorum; in the next paragraph, we assess the animal kingdom.
Animal experience is always of one(a conscious vessel) with many others(sub consciously, conscious vessels), but a barrier exists between. Animal eyes do not sense consciousness of another animal.
In the tesseracting program-cube, which is reality to an animal, is witnessed many other animals, of whom act as tesseract-life.
The opposite tesseract, female gender – the many – and the male key, consciousness. Many consciousnesses, that I’m subconsciously alert to and aware of, are united with myself. I posit that this occurs inside a cube-field; a cube-field that’s programmable.
A cube can be rotated – perceived from all angles – we can be concise. The nature of a cube is perfect for tesseract-life. It also allows a tesseract reality to tesseract; tesseracting.
The nature of a tesseract as described before, is like this continuum. A conscious mind, or rather what we know about it, can only be understood at one angle, and never rotated. This frame – this modus operandi – is repeating and consistent.
I walk down the street sensing ordinary data, per se, men working on houses. There is more to this data than meets the eye; though I cannot confirm, I presume that they experience conscious mind. Therefore, I posit that consciousness – the spirit – is a tesseract(external perception, is angular, and forfeit; internal perception, ineffable and numb).
Given that, and adding civilization into the mix, I can see that the cube-program is tesseracting. Consciousnesses project things in their likeness, and construct what’s useful to them – resulting in an unconscious abstraction of the conscious.
For example, a house is a reflection of man’s needs, and it is also like man(conscious vessel). It stands, and accepts the light of others; it contains power, and can reject data depending on how apt it is.
In the manifold of it all, the tesseract-life-form with the tesseract-life-form, there is a continuum, and progression. Civilization advances, reality perpetuates and life is organic.
To conclude, I believe I’ve provided enough necessary data involved in my observations to warrant good discussion. I ask that debates against me are forethought, regarding specific and all data I’ve produced. The main argument is that tesseracts can only be sensed at one angle at a time, and this relates to reality – as experienced from a conscious vessel.
Comments (13)
I was expecting a serious response.
It seems a bit petty: your suffering here.
You've avoided discussion and stated that.
I'm a little intrigued as to what part of the thesis is druggy-apt, can you point out a sentence?
Perhaps it's just your own mental/physical deficiency, to which I suggest going to a doctor or meditation.
I'll treat you with care none-the-less...
Djezus man, relax! I didn't know you are that serious! Why you think I suffer? From your weird view maybe, yes! It reminds me somehow of David Bohm's view of reality being a hologram kind of structure, although he at least shows signs of intelligence (no offense!) and a sense of relativity (you sound quite absolute).
The female gender (the many even) a tesseract and the male a key, a consciousness? Sounds pretty mushroomy, or it shows a detachment from woman all together.
But if you want a serious response, let me contemplate your reality, which seems pretty detached though. What's the big deal with houses?
If all you took from my thesis was a thing for houses and a statement, outcast from the rest, you're more likely the shrooms' culprit.
I wished it was. We could have a laugh at least. Your seriousness is depressing though. If you only had read what I wrote... I wrote that I would contemplate your "theorum". Just give me some time. First question: I assume you have the ordinary tesseract in mind. What represent the sides?
A tesseract, as stated in the original post, cannot be sensed from all angles.
From the angle we can sense, we sense mere fractions of a few sides.
Therefore, how am I supposed to answer your question?
Let's look at this. You think the universe is a lifeform. We are obviously part of it. How are we represented?
Life-Form is not the same as lifeform; in the context I used it, it means a formation for tesseract-life(if you read the second part of the statement properly, you'd notice I outline that).
Why not? A tesseract can be viewed from all angles. Look at Dali's 3d view on it. The 3d part can be viewed from all angles and hence the full 4d one.
Why not a hyperpyramid or a hypersphere?