Cosmopsychism

From post 21: "Swirling flows of an infinite soup of proto logic out of which drifting islands emerge with unique ecosystems of physical laws..." 
It reminds me of the ambiguous grammar New Age people I've known and have read have used an still do. A prime example is Depak Chropra. Virtually every utterance of his sounds profound yet when analyzed makes little grammatical sense. Ambiguity is the fault of such speech for it's up to the reader to decipher.

So basically you don't know what an analogy is.  Got it.

What do you think of this nonsensical babble? ->

Point out the babble part.

So basically you don't know what an analogy is.  Got it.

Explain what the bold means. Laird and me like to know.

Explain what the bold means. Laird and me like to know.

I already did that to the best of my ability. If it's not clear enough well sorry I'm not exactly a professor of Interdimensional Physics with 35 years of teaching experience who knows how to explain this stuff simply. I'm working off of past life memory dealing with things I haven't had to think about let alone work with in any practical way for a bare minimum of 30 years in the best case scenario, which this very much isn't. I'm amazed I even remember as much as I do to explain it as well as I have. If that level of rust makes it sound "new agey" to you that's not my problem.

Ok lets see if I can come up with something to explain the floating island analogy better, I doubt this will even work but whatever lets give it a shot.

if you have two things hit each other with equal and opposite force and direction, their forces cancel out completely. If they hit at a slight angle, there is a remainder force and direction that becomes the ricochet. If you have three or more things hit each other and richochet there's a chance there could be a secondary richochet depending on the initial angles and forces. If you now have streams of things hitting each other, you might start to see patterns of secondary richochets depending on the forces and angels.

Now if your objects are liquids those patterns of secondary richochets might turn into a stable vortex if the angles and forces are just right. Internally that vortex might have its own internal, encapsulated rhythm of other tertiary, quaternary, etc, richochets which could form a pattern that does not leave the larger vortex. layers of vortexes I guess you could say, The infinite components of the initial flows cancel out and you are left with this finite remainder pattern that becomes the internal logic or physics of the vortex.

This is the best I can think of right now to explain my analogy and I'm pretty sure I already more or less said this same thing. So yes, swirls that form unique encapsulated physics ecosystem islands based on the swirls that can also float around and etc is the analogy I thought simplified it best. Is it perfect? No, but it's what I had. I suppose another one would've been eddies in a river when two streams meet. But I'm guessing an analogy like that would've sounded even more new agey.

::EDIT:: I saw that, yes indeed, I did already say all of this in the thing that Laird was replying to even though he didn't quote me in it for it to be seen. I'll leave this up anyways just because.

Explain what the bold means. Laird and me like to know.

It's just silly nonsensical phrases put together, just like you accuse Chopra of doing.

Or perhaps you can point out the difference?

It's just silly nonsensical phrases put together, just like you accuse Chopra of doing.

Or perhaps you can point out the difference?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never implied mediochre's post was "babble".
You're unable to define where the babble is. I see.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never implied mediochre's post was "babble".
You're unable to define where the babble is. I see.

Actually I thought you did imply that my post was babble but if that was never the case then I apologize.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never implied mediochre's post was "babble".
You're unable to define where the babble is. I see.

I think you whiffed here Steveo.

I interpreted Sci's comparison to be between Chopra (who you proffered as an example) and Tyson (whom Sci proffered in response).  (i.e., not anything Mediochre said.)

Actzually I thought you did imply that my post was babble but if that was never the case then I apologize.

Only that as the reader it was not possible to understand what you were trying to describe. No hard feelings.