Reciprocality

@theleelajoker It seems to me that you first acknowledge the general distinction between necessity and possibility, where survival is the form of necessity and every desire that goes beyond mere survival are the forms of possibility. Then you appear to point out that the distinction is not as strict as it appear at first glance, where a) the solutions to the problems that goes contrary to survival are optional instead of necessary and b) that the general tendency of acceptance of things that are entirely optional is itself a survival mechanism. My perspective is that a only works if the reason there initially were a desire to survive itself goes away, while b is accurate throughout the process of base survival.

You do not need a lot of math to imagine that 360 degrees (or any isotropic or homogenous metric) are insufficient to describe the simultaneity of matter. You do not need a lot of math to imagine that isotropic/homogenous metrics have their foundations in the unity of perception and generalisations from counting and that properties that pertains to entities that exists independently of the perceptions from where we abstracted metrics could just as well exist independent of these metrics. Definite positions are a relation between one position and another, out of any two coordinates an isotropic two-dimensional metric can always be derived, when a third coordinate point is introduced without itself deriving from that metric you will not neatly fit it into that metric. It should be straight forward from this to conclude that quantum particles without consciousness (or interaction with something from which a metric is generalised, thus consciousness) have no definite position. Why should this take away from their simultaneity, if all simultaneity requires is an equal age via respective continuous paths each path of which are independent of any isotropic metric that unifies them?

@LifeEnjoyer I am really asking whether ego is inherent to the rejection of a portion of those things we do not want, that what we want becomes apparent by focusing on what we don't is a separate issue.

Can the energy of the ego be used to focus away from information that is unhealthy, were that largely why the ego were developed initially and are we justified in returning again and again to ego to focus better? I intentionally avoid substantiating these questions any further because I suspect it would only take away from their intended general meaning.

Everyone sees the similarity between pens and pencils, but the tendency to maintain focus on that similarity has no obvious or clear-cut purpose. Few sees the similarity between socks and tables, and the tendency to maintain focus on that similarity has often an even less obvious purpose. A topologist would find the sock to be identical to the table in a certain way, and for someone who needs to write something down before they forget a certain message a pen and a pencil will aid them equally well. In both scenarios the very apparent differences are secondary to more abstract similarities, the more general properties that pertain to the items take precedence to the more particular properties. What does genius and madness have to do with this?

Bonusquestion Assuming that all things must either have consistency or inconsistency, or harmony and disharmony or congruence and incongruence what ensures that the figure and the idea of someone remains congruent? Are they ever incongruent? When they are incongruent then what generally happens? And if when such incongruence does happen we are the ones who resolves it, then must we change some of our beliefs about the world as a whole in that process?

If the idea of the person is different from the figure of the person, and there is nothing but figure in perception, then how come that the idea impresses on us simultaneously as the figure does and where does that idea come from?

@Javfly33 Aren't you wittingly or not trying to fix the world already by the principle of not doing so, by wishing to affect those who thinks differently?

@Javfly33 What comes to mind when you consider something undisturbed, something you don't compare to or something your intensions could only negatively impact?

Preferring the world as it is without your own involvement, to not disrupt or alter it in any way, how often and when last did you have a day like this? Is it enlightened? In which way do you on your better days prefer the world as it is instead of the way you want it or the way in which it comes together?

The superficial differences are real, the rest are just practical

Is it a first person perspective you want to have in a young state of mind or is it your particular character you want to have in a young state of mind? It appears to me that the latter is correct, your self is your particular way to love, your particular conscience and fixation, but why is it important that it must be experienced from a first person perspective (an integral whole)? Is there a difference between this insistence on the first person perspective and rejection of others? Isn't youth always myopic, idealised, stylised, simplistic, unaware and inefficient, could you live as a young person without being all those things many times over?

The bum on the street is you and me everyone can focus their mind, some tries to focus others mind as well, this is enlightenment and manipulation hand in hand and we all do it continuously

If the function it serves to identify as a "me" is to switch conscious focus at will so to not become drawn from object to object then how do we navigate the world without this "self"? When I lose the sense of "me" this consciousness becomes filled with something else, this is wobbly or unstable and is therefore prone to induce chaos and distress. How do you minimise your awareness on certain things without the aid of the illwill the self has against these things?

You are treating variables as though they add to one another, are conjoined, but they are mutually defined, connected and are dualities of one distributed entity. A sum of added parts / coinciding parts were one of the worst tragedies that happened to our intellectual circuits, they are effectively enforced accidents (inessentials) where any one part forcefully exists independently of the others. The modern language we use comes with the accident of every one combination of words that expresses meaning, the syntax of the sentence, and I believe this has forced us to think more syntactically about memories, the hypothesis from this is that tribes that only think by hieroglyphs or single words think wholes and are able to "see" the whole through the parts, that they think holistically because the accidental relations between things have not been forced on them through the way in which syntax of language efficiently allows one to think utterly differentiated things, partially from ones will and woe, at various points of the day or week which when generalised into entailments would be tremendously inconsistent with each other. When we employ immense amounts of conceptual thinking the inherent connections between parts can reemerge, where their distinction is falsified through investigation into the ground for abstractions (phenomenology, axiomatics and memories), such that nothingness derive from logical negation, negation derive from spontaneous distinction, ones sense of self is the same as others, limits unified with conditions, body identical with mind, the future identical with the past, space the same as time, algebra the same as geometry, energy as the same as space-time, logic as the same as identity etc.