Reciprocality

The cultural distinction between matter and consciousness could be methodical or practical as opposed to fundamental, that when we try to found either in the other we often end up pointing to invariances that are identical suggests that the distinction is precisely so: a methodical angle. Some strands of structural realism can maintain monistic ontology via invariances as condition for objectivity quite parsimoniously and consistently, and unifying materialism and idealism while at it just as it unifies philosophical rationalism and empiricism. One naivite on part of materialism is how the concept of time, which we gain via the invariant rate of diminution of phenomenal and cognitive intensity is supposed to pertain to objects which invariant rate of diminution depends on and is relative to sufficiently particularised locations which through being imposed by information from every other location outputs a rate of "time". Yet these accounts of material substance is hardly to find anywhere thus hypostatised time projected from the mind takes its stead. If we try to look for fundamental physical substances we end up with entities that instantiate properties that partake in dualities and are exhaustive of all possibilities, thus dichotomies like continuous/discrete, necessary/contingent, connected/spontaneous, the very same invariances that arises in phenomenological accounts of the behaviour of consciousness, suggesting the already mentioned mere practical nature of the distinction between mind and matter. The real question becomes how well we are able to stratify the distribution of contingencies, invariances and origins in the tenants of our personal experience and therewith determine when we have the "right" perspective in our everyday life, determining when our thoughts are merely our personal world and when they really are objective, not whether reality is material or conscious.

@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?