Reciprocality

@Letho If this is true for some or all universals then it should be possible to investigate and create a thought experiment where their malleability are revealed, if you could do this I would test it and post the evaluation here afterwards as well as look for inconsistencies between it and my assertions here. The tension certainly is a factor of novel application of the universal, but I believe it is the world-idea and not the units of its metric that gets changed, even if those units ties thereby to units previously foreign. Are you implying that static universals goes contrary to the collapsing boundaries of perception and realisation, which I take to constitute our everyday intuition? Could one even have anything collapsable if it were everywhere made out of jelly? Can there be change in one thing without the absence of change in the other thing? Would the malleability of a baby grow into a unified sense of self without much of the unchanging behaviour of its parents? Could a rubber ball bounce off of the floor if it too like above were made out of jelly? If not then what is different in this topic which also encompasses change? And if there is no such difference then what besides the universals constitutes the rigidity necessary for change or growth? To your question on self-reference: Most of my nature, knowledge and relational principles are hidden from my direct continuous access, new truths spring from old ones, new angles arise from old angles, new motives spring from resolution between antithetical ones, what would make this enclosed, what would not be revelatory in it and which possible alternative revelations are there besides those that sprung from what we already are, whether through observation or thought?

When we perceive something in earnest belief that the identity of the perceived object dwells in that object we are disconnected from the universal in it and disconnected from how that universal is our own intellect thus disconnected from the possibility of universals beyond our own intellect and therefore disconnected from a higher curiosity. Have you ever observed the face of someone in a restaurant or caffe and looked away without thinking twice about what you saw? This implies that there were nothing in the expression of their face that contradict your awareness of reality. If contradiction is necessary for you to think about the identity itself of something then this implies again that you continuously believe that the identity dwells in the object. But what if this changed? What if every item in perception were seen as yourself? What if the identity itself of every perception were distinguished from the stimuli of the senses? Wouldn't this be self-reference properly so called? What besides such complete separation between stimuli and identity thus convergence between identity and self would constitute enlightenment? What are the conditions necessary for distinctness in perception and are there distinct things that are in no way universal but instead utterly personal?

@Letho Let us say a friend is behaving in a way that you can not understand, this way is neither beautiful or ugly, neither shallow or deep, neither kind or mean. Would their behaviour be so incomprehensible that it is entirely different from humanity at large? When you are incapable of judging the situation you may begin questioning the quality of your judgement itself, but this may be a needless restriction to acquired semantics. So what is the alternative? The alternative is to create a universal identity of their behaviour itself, the result is that the upcoming days or weeks one will find this behaviour in others and stand the chance to inquire with far more tools at to the causes (motive) that create them thus leaving the domain of synthetic semantic judgements for the domain of universal principles that dictates entailments the same way as the past dictates the future. Your conscience is only freed from circumspection when you see with clarity the absurdity of a given contrary.

@Letho I don't deny processes or continuous change in the composite of parts, but you seem to suggest that the universals are themselves changing, yet universals are relational or simple and relationality and simplicity is the inverse of composites and change. Some years ago you stated that my methods were rather deductive and your more inductive, this distinction appears to be relevant again as you find partiality where I find exhaustion. What can be gained from mere generalisations of particulars that can not be superseded by only thinking those particulars that entail universals? If it is knowable that all xs are ys and all fs are xs and no gs are xs then what is there to gain from piling up some fs today and then some gs tomorrow that may or may not be ys until discovery of xs? Why synthetic judgements that may be false and involves semantic content that couples with personal motivation when you can have universality at the expense of particular subjects? What do we gain except personal approval by correct coupling of the social semantics with referents, what besides personal motivation couples two things that did not couple purely intellectually? What besides manual efforts is employed towards these synthetic judgements and why prefer these to the spontaneous and infallible judgements of universals?

The chase is its own reward, and it is so for the same reason any other chase leads to any other reward. All life on our planet experience distress in sufficiently complex circumstances, this distress is the teleological uniformity of life, it is the necessary precursor for the evolution of the various ordering mechanism that entails all throughout animal history, whether it be by mere sufficient reduction of stimuli such as happens at the lower end or the heuristics-producing, narrative spinning and memory compiling ego that strengthens itself at every turn or whether it is the inquiry into causes, motives and foundations in processes, behaviour and propositions. To identify distinctly that which happens with very little to no exceptions is as taxing as it is rewarding, for the same reasons any tough task is worth it in the end.

@Letho It is expansion, but by division of what already is, not addition. You can always trace the expansion into some unresolved friction, forgotten tendency, general behaviour, etc. again, self reference. Why bother looking for meaning beyond the inside if all that meaning can be simulated on the inside, why bother meeting with others if the motivation to their action is decoded via the universal that it represents and that universal can be distinctly identified without perception of the action that once implied it and upon which we once inquired for the purpose of now possessing it? From what I can gather you did not miss much, were rather spot on, and not by accident since all introspective paths leads precisely here and could only have somewhere else to lead if one were in any way different but such is not and could not be the case. I am formalising the theories as you suggests, the little that I engage this forum is purposed to conversations like this where I can somewhat connect with people who in their own words articulates precisely what I do, tension is accumulated in all closed systems (even the self-referential one) which is why being seen or acknowledged by others can offset that tension, my engagement in the forum allows the energy to be parallelised or dissipated more quickly, which gives more space for the more particular investigations that all the general theories gain their possible rigour from. The questions would only and could only endlessly give rise to new questions if old answers were disregarded at the same or higher pace as new answers were incorporated. Insistence on coherence and consistency on the other hand can allow exhaustion of any finite domain, but if you mistake reality for infinity then your engagement with the universals are decoupled from one another and all you are seeing is a chaos of particulars, which in turn will produce the distress that our memory and intellect were purposed to minimise through order. what else?

The following is conditional inference If enlightenment is phenomenological and everything phenomenological adds up to a complete compound and all things that adds up to complete compounds has a ratio to one another and natural maturity reduces the sections of the complete compound that concerns the continuous drive of the ego-construct then it follows that natural maturity is enlightenment. I intentionally avoid defining enlightenment so that the assertion bolded above isn't tautological without the phenomenological if-statements. Id be interested in a discussion on the correctness of these premises.

@Letho Another possible byproduct of this non-linear trajectory of self-reference is that universals (things kind of existing outside of time) become ends in themselves, much like how Schopenhauer depicts his Platonic philosophy in The World As Will And Representation, whether they are universals of beauty, teleology, development, intent, appearance, identity or perhaps "transcendental" concepts that unify all of reality such as we find in the dualities of essence/accident, mind/body, predicate/subject, homogeneity/complexity as well as the cognitive systems and contexts they couple with in precise ways. If all living beings, whether human, animal, biological or non-biological operate in the same ways and for the same purposes for reasons that can be investigated with sufficient conceptual baggage and without reliance on dogmatic teleology then I can not see otherwise than that this would be the pinnacle of universals, self-reference and ego-dissolution, as it provides for a direct connection to the reasons for and eternally repeating footprint of existence.

@Letho If your position is that the maturation process is influenced by cultural factors then you were probably correct in saying that I should have reread your metaphor, the probabilistic domain of unknown cultural factors certainly influences the development and dissolution process of the ego, maturity or enlightenment, which the phenomenological argument states to be three expressions of the same thing. Note on the bolded: Are you perhaps saying that the competition between constructs are inherent to the immature ego? And though the ego dissolves is it therefore precise to consider the competing constructs to dissolve with it, don't we for instance still have many of these constructs with us way after the ego has waved goodbye? And if the competition you were referring to instead were between the ego and maturity then it would certainly seem like you were stating the ratio-part of my phenomenological model in different words which, again, I should have figured out when I read it. The visualisation can certainly be helpful to some who would want to understand the idea we were discussing. Are you suggesting that various iterations of the development of an ego can to some extent not be compared to one another due to how perception is self referential (projection from subject to object) in each iteration? This is interesting, it does not seem way off but I would want to hear more about how you conceptualise this without getting too speculative myself. The effect that ego-dissolution has with the more and more clear insight into ones own conditioning through the perception of behaviour of other people just as one sees ones own character as present in their behaviour thus separation between a. stimuli/objects and b. identity (self-reference) while perceiving ones surrounding then the ratio of this compound simply follows the non-linear trajectory you suggest, if given enough time, effort, sincerity and discipline. The result is that one grows a higher curiosity to the things that exists independently of ones own memory and intellect, partially due to how one knows that others are just like one self, which does appear to provide the somewhat paradoxical and self-referential loop you problematised above. Note on the bolded question: Yes the idea is that our identity of going the enlightened path is conditioned on continuously identifying the ego delusions of other people and culture at large, that this happens because we carry at all times a perspective of the world itself for the purpose of comparing ourself to it and keeping us within beneficial limits.

Dave has some impressive judgements and intuitions that he relies on to aggressively look for the behaviour that conforms to it, this is partially why his debunking videos gain so much views and that his skeptical audience praises it. Dave is a an analyst of human intension behind human action, this is why he is a very efficient bully. Dave positions himself as a top-dog, this identity of a top dog gives him much of the energy and focus sufficient to create these kinds of videos. Dave's personality would easily be characterised as stage red on the spiral dynamics model, the man lives and breathes the heuristics that allows him to position himself as the strong guy which is confirmed by his exclusively confrontational and derogatory focus in the interactions in the comment sections under his debunking videos on his utube channel and the debunking videos themselves. Dave's method for scientific knowledge is hardly different from his personality (a personality he naturally hides in presence with people he respects), anything can be taught from a motivation that hides elsewhere than in the taught insight and there may be several cases of this that you can remember, I am not suggesting that many don't have a confrontational side but it does not easily couple directly to their knowledge when that side of them is purely contextual. Dave has in many of his videos employed his knowledge of scientific models and theories as a positive instead of as a negational assertion, this implies the heuristical (or non-substantial) nature of the knowledge. (substantial knowledge implies sufficient topical similarity) My claim that Daves scientific knowledge is not substantive but primarily heuristical can be further grounded on the principle that I pointed to above which is that the more one has acquired of substantial knowledge the more particular are the conditions necessary to retrieve them. Knowledge of scientific terminology and correlations that does not rely on a complex range of perception of real world referents are not post-dogmatic in the least and can instead be perfectly purposed for and congruent with manipulative, self centred or competitive use. The pure science videos are very helpful, and Dave does a good job with these, but its positive contribution to the world is not knowledge but instead heuristics that makes acquisition and comparison of knowledge easier later.

@Letho It appears like you smuggled in a concept of enlightenment as emerging from the spinning wheels out of nowhere though it would already be proportionate to the "ego voidness" (y) from the coupling in the argument I presented. It also appears like you strictly define enlightenment (z) as a construct and ego voidness as not a construct, which creates a meta-perspective that is simply not warranted in a topic of the dynamic between experientially real things. My argument, if correct, implies that these cultural, sociopolitical and economic agendas of our current age is significantly independent of enlightenment. Which further implies the fantastical generalisation of the "unenlightened" masses that you are operating with from the beginning. Is it not quite possible that the world you are seeing and paying attention to is that sub-section of it which are most aligned with your own level of maturity, that the ongoing stream of "most people are this and that way" is an externalisation of your own latent intent and behaviour?

What if we investigate where the concepts and categories that compare people come from? Are they intelligible for others or are they entirely personal to us? If these concepts are intelligible for others then they are universals, and if they are universal how could they be artificial? Edit: if developmental processes leads to the concepts we possess and we possess the same concepts then this implies that we went through the same developmental processes.

@Kuba Powiertowski It is understandable to be irritated when you don't believe your point have been received by those who respond to your post. I have no qualms with the premise that humans position themselves and evaluate and compare themselves with others in all sorts of ways, what I am questioning is what this implies about us, why it happens and whether it could fail to happen. I am thereby questioning how artificial human posturing and comparison really is, by hinting at the natural nature of some hierarchies such as the one that produces the words that are available to us at this moment. There are many kinds of ways the ego could have been conditioned, and it were conditioned the way it were for analogous reasons to why others ego were conditioned the way their were, you appear to claim that these reasons are artificial without articulating the relationship between the concept of artificiality and these reasons/behaviours. I am not asking for more information about hierarchies, but about the justification for the status of some being artificial, from which justification I would be better suited to evaluate whether the ego is properly separated. I would also question how the ego could be a separated entity if the hierarchy on which it is based is conditioned on comparison between people, how separate is it if the concepts that compares it with others unifies them under one category?

Interactions are inherently euclidian, nothing physical is determined besides euclidian interactions, energy states are physical and everything euclidian must change energy states to be undetermined again thus trajectories follow from the euclidian nature to measurement or interaction. Determination and interaction does not reify into every segment of reality just because their concepts does not intuitively or perceptively meet on any contradictions there. Modern physics appears to me to only be aware of the evidence for these assertions, not the philosophical entailment.

@Kuba Powiertowski Which hierarchy is truly artificial?

Are there not parts in a combustion engine which are less essential than others? Does not some parts of the combustion itself emerge from other more homogenous or invariant parts that could produce many other emergent effects besides combustion? Wouldn't you prefer to lose 2 fingers instead of 3? 1 hand instead of 2? Weren't every word you expressed here distilled into the finest essence of things from thousands of years of linguistic evolution, implying hierarchy in the order of natural language? Natural order?

It may turn out that the damage is already done, that unless one preserves the independency of every identity by not associating it to any other, even those it correlates with in time and space, then motivation instead of insight will guide its application so that the mind has no reason to change direction. The efficiency of good insight and awareness of the world is inversely proportionate to the tendency of association between distinct things, thus if a desire is remembered upon the sound of a word (such as the desire for political victory when hearing the word "liberal" or "conservative" then the mind is already cognitively impaired in relation to that topic. edit: The more immense the association the more impaired the concept, the self is apt for association thus the more immense the self the less distinct your thoughts.

When you listen in on a podcast or video don't you find that the remembered item in conversation is highly correlated with the intonation and rhetorical efforts of the agent? That there rarely is any memory there unless it serves the purpose that this intonation and rhetorics implies? What is the implication if not that the memory that couples with a given subject is that about the lived experience of the agent which conforms to its motivation? How could an agent change their perspective if the very mechanism which allows them to remember something is that perspective, how would they be able to change perspective without a corresponding memory? If we could be reasoned into something that negates fundamental values or beliefs it would suggest that fundamental values were secondary to reason. If on the other hand reason were dependent on the clarity or distinctness of the identity of concepts and these concepts would need to leave their invisible dwelling place in the mind where all its associations or known use cases also lies then unless all those associations were brought along then surely pointing out an inconsistency here and a fallacy there would not suffice to decouple those associations.

Reality is a personal engagement and a personal abstraction that pertain to every particular thing but its identity appear to never be contradicted by any of these particular things, the items of perception. How would it be possible to infer anything about other peoples reality-concept if it never even appears to us that it could be different from our own via how every single experience is consistent with out own reality-concept? I can not see the world beyond the way in which its various items becomes the same reality I have always imagined. It really follows that I can not be other than who I am, but also that I cant not be me. But if by some weird inquiry, deduction or contemplation we could reach the ways in which others reality is or has to be, then how would we succeed at that? If that which is the same in all of us could be pinned down, distinctly identified, how would we succeed with doing so, how could we avoid that line of thought turning recursive or self-referential? And if we can not avoid that self-reference problem then could that actually imply that reality is the same thing for all of us? edit: a few imprecisions.

@Spiritual Warfare It appeared in the OP that you want more than you have and even more than you can have, it implies that you are someone who does not have enough and that what you want is itself more than enough. You also say that you want to know the truth, which implies that your knowledge reveals to you its own limits, but what if this too is impossible and that your desire for the truth is more-so a reflection of your desiring than the truth itself, just like above?

@Sugarcoat Or what if the main point means the purpose of the post and that purpose could only be revealed in the answers to the questions I asked?

@Sugarcoat Are there always main points? I am saying several coherent things, and since the concept of a "main point" and "coherence" have a very similar relation to their respective compliments such as "subservient points" and "several inputs" the coherence should answer your question. I could state their coherence directly, it would require overly abstract language, and it would be somewhat like putting the cart before the horse. The coherence of many things can be elucidated by mutual exploration and exemplification, if your question couples directly to something I said it should have a higher chance of me providing a good answer.

Take one day at the time, and if that becomes depressing take one hour at the time... or five minutes? or 5 seconds? Unless your problems are physical pain then they are connected to your memories, and the further ahead you are looking into things the deeper into your memories you access your thinking.

When is falsity admissible or search for truth not preferable to it? We often think that we should believe what is true, but can it sometimes be more important to a) have a belief than b) ones beliefs being true if sufficiently tested? Perhaps even if that belief is very rigid or inflexible, can it still be more important than the truth? Could a false belief open up for more truths than a true belief? Which would then tend to be more important, do we have a metric to determine so?

I do not get it, why is all this stuff here, I have all these cartoons that helps me explain it, but those cartoons explains only how these things interrelates. Why is the stuff here in the first place? The only reason the keyboard I am typing on don't blow my mind is that I am familiar with it, when I look at it there is memory, when I touch it there is memory, but it is not memory, so what is it and does it end? If it could end then wouldn't there have to be someone there to experience the experience going away?