Reciprocality

@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.

To be clear, the thesis is that burnout is an effect of subject-relative higher cognitive efficiency because for every thought it processes more efficiently inherent constraints are approached more closely without that limiting the growth-vector/ synthesis of concepts, the unchangeable nature thus universal applicability of concepts could also be predicted simply from that. Thus the idea that you could think more efficiently x and y without that leading to z decouples the inherent relations without which the mind would not think in the first place. The condition-limit equivalence is also an argument for a macro-level (non-continuous) determinism which is translatable to an inherent psychological balance-mechanism which dictates that any action or non-action follows by an equal and opposite action or reaction in some or other way. To disagree with the equivalence will then imply disagreement with the balance mechanism, so if you think that the mind has a shadow, a conscience or values then what can be induced from them (inherent psychological balance) is negated by that disagreement. Edit: note on the point of the universality of concepts: if they weren't unchangeable why would humans intuitively read their children and younger people like a book? Are judgements sudden novelties or are they remnants from past experiences? Is the belief in the novelty of my present judgement a decoupling between the present and the past?

Where does the concepts of boredom and stimuli come from? Why are you stimulated by a conversation about neurology, principles, improvement, intelligence etc., instead of a conversation about the politics concerning the ownership of land in the sandbox at the closest kindergarten? My answer to that question is largely that you have grown to think of ownership, self, self-bias etc. in far more efficient and interconnected ways than you once did, but that this efficiency would be impossible without first having been the self-proclaimed owner of the sandbox, and that whatever comes afterwards are more and more complex bifurcations of that proclamation and its negation, that the significance of such proclamation is the substance of the system that overtakes it. The new branches on a tree grows out of what the tree already is, and these new branches render a higher toil on the tree in proportion to what they contribute than the previous generation, since the substance that allows it to operate is the same limit all throughout every generation, if this were not so then trees would die far later. You don't accept my proposition because you don't connect the inherent relation between the condition for the possibility of x with the limit of x. Once you distinctly identify how all systems are limited by their conditions you see how it entails that if all else were equal then a more efficient variant of a brain or mind will use more energy than a less efficient one, not in relation to a given task, for which the converse is true, but in relation to the set of all relatively-present tasks. It is possible that other variables minimises the effect, and that part of what life on this planet has done is to succeed at this, that would be a very interesting hypothesis and we should investigate it, but confusing that for the absence of condition-to-limit equivalency would be like confusing biology for physics. If conditions are equal to limits then just as the conditions will continue to be the walls you are bumping into so too will they be the growth that allows you to tear through them, if the growth-vector were to minimise the more one grew then the continuous limits that the growth vector up until then constituted would need to minimise too. Which would be absurd unless the system were initially unequal in condition and limits, which also would be absurd. The more easily you think concept x the more easily y is conceived alongside it, since concepts have their whole significance and origination in the perception and set of judgements both of which correspond with the growth-vector and its inherent limits all throughout your development. What I am saying may be clearer if you consider concepts as the aperture of the mind and the experiences it can and will imagine.