One can achieve all. Helps to know the rudimentary stuff of reality as 3d is basically a visual re-creation of knowledge for that what is. Only after achieving the basics of life chosen, one will continue to search (meditate) for intent.
Found that no matter how ‘good’ (effective) i get, while having no path (intent, script, concept or own inner visual solution), work gets complicated sooner or later. It is when stopping to contemplate or everything else becomes a must (which pill to take? Red or Blue or Green.)
That’s when I do basic works as plowing the Earth, saw the seed, travel in drugs, practice for body control (tai-chi, yoga or any martial art that keeps entity of self aligned, let muscles remember so mind (brain&heart) is relieved) and train & train & train… brains for improvement of logic and effectiveness of mental power, heart for patience and to control own feelings. Sometimes catharsis needs to be achieved otherwise meaning gets lost, other doubts take over and enlightenment seems further.
Finally one can see ‘future’, sit down and face the artificial reality doors (computer) through which can transform to all of ‘vision & wisdom’ gained. (To help others one must care of self.)
I use drugs appropriate to their intent. Everything is a drug (words even). Create. Destroy. Balance. Mix. Fuse… Blender. So am grateful and humble for having an opportunity to live for love (process) and enjoy, thus entity of Cosmos.
“One of the reasons I ask is because I like to get the big picture of small things, I like to see how its connected, I like metaphors… My brain likes it.”
1.618033
Google for Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz 
you’ll find heaven.
Like Jonathan L said, get your hands dirty. You don’t need to learn about light scattering and atmosphere(or geez, quantum-freaking-physics) to make a blue sky. The bottom line is…the sky is blue, so make it blue(or sunset orange/purple, etc.). Thinking like this is truly the reason a lot of people around here make squat with the program. I think it’s more understanding the 3D workspace than anything(x/y/z, top, front, side, etc.), and topology flow. I’m not going to consult a book on quantum physics as to why my model has a bunch of kinks in it, I’m going to move some vertices around.
[QUOTE=Jonathan L;2698219]@jpb06: Exactly right, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Mind altering substances kill brain cells and hurt learning and productivity quite a bit.
^^ This is not actually true, there are studies that show that Psilocybin mushrooms (magic mushrooms). "In tests on mice with damaged brain cells, the researchers found that psilocybin stimulated the creation of new ones. Psilocybin creates neurogenesis.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/technicolor-medicine-magic-mushrooms-can-create-new-brain-cells
Wow Fibonacci! Thanks for the link. When I get better at designing ancient architecture I plan on using the Golden mean/ratio etc. 
I understand. I will take your advice, thank you.
I get what you are saying, but it’s funny you should say this right after we get anisotropic volumetric scattering in Blender. You can ignore it, but to use it efficiently you need to know exactly what you said you don’t need to know.
I am always amazed how people making tutorial can talk complete nonsense about physics (a well known tutorial maker I will not mention by name once describe the index of refraction as the glassiness of a material) and yet, they can make much nicer renders than I can. I would argue that I understand scattering better than most cycles devs, yet I couldn’t write a single line of renderer code even if my life depended on it. It just shows that there is different levels of understanding a problem. I’m at the most fundamental side of the spectrum, but that doesn’t help me to make nice images at all.
My knee-jerk reaction was to think that your average person under the influence of some of the suggested mind altering substances would be wowed by their own creativity as they rotate the default cube in the viewport. And I mean no disrespect to the default cube, it is indeed cubic and so under-rated - so much potential lost as - in tutorial after tutorial - the cube is deleted without a second thought. Some people manage remarkable productivity and creativity under the influence - from Bob Marley to Hunter S. Thompson… but I’m not one of them.
As for math - yes I can do math, but I don’t have a mental model of transformation matrices in my head as I work with Blender. I do pay a lot of attention to the vertices when I’m modelling. Rendering is still too slow for me, expecially when rendering video, so I have a mental model that relates the mesh I’m working on to some ideal object in my mind (and I try to use abstraction, lighting, normal maps, rendering and other tricks to achieve an approximation of that ideal object). Other people might prefer to think in terms of the overall surface, or the volume, or some other mental model - and I’m sure some of the most amazing renders you will see on this site are by artists who view their art as unrelated to the maths Blender uses to produce the images… but for me I tend to think in terms of the mesh of vertices.
Just remember when you get into a deep meditative trance while modeling that you save often. 
Always knew there was a reason why the Blender Institute was in Amsterdam…
Woah! now we’re mixing Psychology/Philosophy with CG?
Hey that gives me an idea too: I should try smoking something strong while modelling… cause next thing you know everyone is gonna be doing it and you always want to be ahead of the curve.
I can see it now: Community of Blender artists start neo-CG-hippie movement. 
lol
How about mixing CG with natural science/biology??? anyone had any success yet trying to “evolve” a Suzanne from a single vert? and how long it took? I’m trying to evolve my own… but no success yet since 2.49 
and under prime conditions too lol
To get a bit Zen: there’s no short-cuts to attaining that insight - there’s the wisdom of people who’ve been there before, then lots of practice to make that wisdom your own. That’s all.
…science…
And over time, the scenes will just get more and more bizarre, eventually not looking like anything to anyone because the drugs decimated your brain (and no, you won’t be able to get your skill back).
To the guy who posted the thread, if you actually do those things, I would get enrolled in a substance abuse rehabilitation class before it robs you of the ability to live as a functional human being.
Reality is for people who can’t handle CG.
I can never decide which people are more tedious - the ones that think drugs solve everything or the ones that think drugs ruin everything.
First of all I have to salute the OP for some really original (although unusual) subjects for a thread. 
Then - just to mix opinions up - and maybe even out things a bit when people are saying :
‘Profound deep philosophical understanding does not mix well with the assumption of substances which severely alter brain functions’
‘If you actually do those things, I would get enrolled in a substance abuse rehabilitation class before it robs you of the ability to live as a functional human being’.
First there is Steve Jobs’ quote on taking LSD.
And here is comedian Bill Hicks’ - well, thought provoking - take on drugs.
Bill Hicks & drugs : On evolution. On music. A positive drug story.
Note : If you don’t know this comedian - he have no problems with using a explicit language and being pretty provocative. Just so you know (and warned).
And personally ? I think everyone should make up their own mind about doing drugs. But please if you choose to do it - be a adult, research thorough things first, be conservative (mild before strong), and be very observant about your personal side effects (short and long term).
(Again) personally - I have come to the conclusion that I’m not build for doing drugs.
Ok, after this - back on topic (or part of the topic) :
For my part I have once or twice (in my youth) tried to use a 3d program while on marijuana. That didn’t work well. The combination of keyboard and mouse coordination & small buttons on the screen. Yikes ! my workflow was so slow. And there was no deeper understanding of 3d as far as I can recall.
Friends of mine though I have seen happily buzzing along doing 2d/3d graphics after they have been smoking. But then again, they were in their youth.
Anyway, to end this post.
Since we/I are talking about drugs, computers & culture - I can heartily recommend these 2 books to anyone out there :
Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream (Amazon link). The history of LSD and its influence on American culture, described over 400 pages.
What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry (Wikipedia link, Amazon link).
Among all the books I own, the last one I think is my favourite.
For everyone (and I mean everyone). If you are interested in the genesis of the PC - this is the book to read IMO.
It is a narrative made by a lot of stories from people living in California back then. People like Douglas Engelbart, Stewart Brand, Fred Moore * & Alan Kay. In places like ARC, SAIL, Xerox PARC & The homebrew computer club.
[SUP]* One of my (few) personal heroes. And described by the books author as ‘the unrecognized patron saint of the open-source software movement’.[/SUP]
To touch upon the OP’s first question…
I would say that you can see 3d modelling at its core as manipulations of triangle meshes. And when rendering, combining this with distribution of ‘energy’ in the form of light paths… and so on. Not the most original take on this, I know.
It’s gets more funny (and this thread is a bit spacy anyway) when people begin to make theories that the universe is based on some triangle like structures :
For instance a Amplituhedron(a cutting edge scientific theory) - here is a additional articlefrom Wired
Or a Tetrahedron(Buckminster Fuller’s not so scientific theory)