Reciprocality

We are the closest to nature when we are separated from an intension to be different than you we, as well as the intension to be what you we. If the currency of culture had you conceive of the world around you as an independent existence, and you could at no point conceive a problem with this, though it may be at the detriment for your ability to discern between variables efficiently like the scientist does, would not imply that you do not live in a state of non-duality. It is instead, ironically enough, we who had the intension of deconstructing something who lives in a state of separation, who analogously has a hole needs filling. Physicalism is the closest you get to the world around you, non-dual metaphysics is a good epistemology but nothing more. Realism of identity is to human intelligence what colour impression and sounds are to the animal intelligence, to question the reality of identity is creation of duality, to be situated such that your instincts can even question the independent reality of the conceivable predicates is to be destined for the most extreme psychological projection of all: that "normies" lives in a bubble of self-deceptive separation, instead it is you who does by having the instinct of idealising an alternative. The truth is that civility entails self-deception, the necessary cost for all the fruits we can not now help to take for granted, implying that our infantile nature of divide and conquer is repressed for our better interest, in relation to this repression all dualities are mere ripple effects, shame can not be escaped unless you become a tyrant. Statements are delusions, beliefs can not be true, only tautologies are true, nothing can be stated of the universal subject necessarily. Intuitions are correct, so long as you do not allow them to pertain to the general principle you induce from them or even the principle you impose on them, for when you do you will subject your intuitions to fantastical doubts.

Reality is irreducible to mental constructs, mental construct is a concept that is conditioned on the logic of contradicting something that is not mental. Other people are not your mental construct, other people is reality happening independently of your constructs, you can not reduce reality to logic. All dualities break down when you get close enough to reality, and what you are referring to as "other people" is not the construct of these people but something on which the construct is contingent.

To confirm my hypothesis try watching a video on youtube in 4k of someone filming walking downtown in some city somewhere, these are typically from Europe. If in these videos you zoom in on peoples faces and you do not see the horror I do then there actually is something wrong with your mind. This horror is what polite society bear on crutches or covers up with bandages, the behaviour of people when they greet one another etc is a product of need, it is the supply to the demand, it is the bandage to the wound.

I don't like to smile and great people with hello, I don't like the need for it, I have instincts against playing into the need for it. But it is a necessity of advanced civilisation, ideally we would live in tribes of 100/200, were a conversation between each agent begun without the need for appearances to deflate well-grounded suspicion. Let me ask a very important question, why is the suspicion for others well grounded?

@Razard86 Every time I write, in other words, I am asking you to exercise your own mind in the same way it has always been exercised, by employing your faculty of recall grounded in memories to instantiate the semantics of my phrasings. If I ask you to conceive a farm your mind will spontaneously recall an actual farm you have been to, much of what I write asks you to exercise the same faculty just to higher extents. Edit: Though some of the things I write should be simple logical connections such as in this comment

@Razard86 To decode what is written, if ones thoughts are grounded in real events, is conditioned on establishing correspondence between the words and those events, if the text is read with the lazy attitude of only thinking in words then insight will look like poor writing.

Which implies higher purposes

Your eyes and ears implies the struggle of the whole history. Something were in want without them. Same is true for each variable, every thought. They all implies their need which in turn implies their insufficiency.

All the contrasts of shape, morhology, curves upon curves. Take any of your concepts, ideas and abstracts, why do you have them? Do you want to know? Did you know that limits can be established under which concepts can be traced to their origins the same way limits can be established within which all objects must conform mathematically? What do you think happens when there is no more peekaboo in any of your thoughts? And do you not think the methods above helps you with that? Transparency of concept is the holiest spirituality.

@Razard86 Look around, everywhere around you being just happens, what does being do? It does separation. Before all your own intentions the world just is, and how do you know? Because being separates itself into experience and experiencer. And what can your intentions do? It has no power here, all its power is conditioned on the separation, it can only fool itself into thinking that it could undermine the separation

@Razard86 If I ask you how "experience" can have a conceptual meaning such that you can denote on valid grounds things through that concept you must say because it is distinct from a non-experience, or that which experiences. And then you will throw that principle in the bin as soon as something instantiates that which makes that concept even conceivable, a non-experience, by saying that the concept has meaning independent of its condition. This you do unironically while being yourself already the reason why the concept is conceivable, by being distinct from an experience. You wish to have the cake and eat it, you want to engage in concepts with your "proper understanding" and then use these concepts without the restriction on which they are contingent. Its like you are Aladdin wanting to fly but refusing to do it with your flying carpet. Your only counter argument is saying that the meaning of experience and experiences themselves self-distributes in all things, but that is an explanation which is excessive and unfalsifiable, since we can explain what is going on with the relation between the concept of experience and experience itself without the concept of universal self-distribution they are simply over-indulgent or extravagant.

@Breakingthewall For sure that clears it up, and I agree that all that is communicated by words are thoughts (at least so far as the purpose for the word is concerned), and even as you said that words themselves can be thoughts, and also that anger is not a thought. I would stress though that even verbal thoughts with mere semantic content requires a medium of communication that is itself communicated, such as I now communicate to you through your sensitivity to the contrast between colours, which when I put it that way becomes a bit trippy.

time has two aspects and many false theories The first aspect is phenomenal, it is the relation between 1. will and 2. rate of diminution of sense-impression and thought, implying the timeless state of meditation. The second aspect is physical, it is the relation between matter and matter (time goes faster because of gravity and gravity gets stronger because of the displacement of matter through time) The first aspect is time proper, the second aspect is a projection of our mind upon the world, informed by principles of logic. This second aspect is likely not time at all, and ineffable or indiscernible by our mind. (the duration between the big bang and now is 0, something must be impressed/imposed on for substance to provide a rate of change (diminution).

@StarStruck Of course, I raise certain points in precise relation to what you wrote and you do not even address them. But I don't mind, I don't intend to be antagonistic if it appeared this way, important part is that we learn and grow. Excuse my previous sarcasm, its those damn dopamines.

@Bazooka Jesus the thought has little to do with the label, their relationship is what we call accidental, so your conclusion is correct, a thought remains, but it is not as you said "another thought" instead it is the same thought in a new moment.

@Breakingthewall Of course not, if there is not medium for the communication of the thought then there is no communication of that thought, and if there is a medium then this must itself be communicated for the thought to be communicated, therefore everything that is communicated is not a thought. The typical medium to introduce here would be sense impression. As a reminder: very little of anything is ever an "everything".

The highest freedom that I can remember to have experienced is when the physical world is a barrier between the character of me and the character of you or anyone else. It means that I do not have to solve your problems, I do not have to figure you out if I can separate you from myself. To the extent that the normies out there on a non-spiritual path of status-search and hedonism have a concept in their mind of the independent existence of material substances they live blissfully unaware of one another's delusions and self-deceptions, breaking these boundaries of inherited wisdom makes you into a super-conductor for human bullshit, it fine tunes your instincts to hide from modern people. Did anyone prepare you for this, did anyone prepare you for superhuman affinity for spotting the bullshit of others?

What fascinates you about applying knowledge in one field to another? Except for math? Do you have any such meaningful knowledge, and if not then how would you be sure that this fascination isn't just a fashion statement, something trendy, something you picked up on by hanging around the cool corner but which in the end would put the cart precisely in front of the horse? Just asking

@Bazooka Jesus :D

@Bazooka Jesus Yeah don't you hate it when they treat you like an adult and hold you to your own words.

@Bazooka Jesus Though I will certainly agree that thoughts are spontaneous, and they have no material substance, they are non the less distinct, implying that your criterion for the concept of substance is more than distinctness, but if we investigate a common definition of substance, that it is something that is a predicate of nothing else, then this definition would contradict your assertion that thoughts comes from nowhere, for all things which comes from nowhere are to that extent predicates of nothing and therefore substantial.

If all you are saying amounts to the notion that several ejaculations every day makes it tougher to ejaculate an additional time, and that the more you do it the higher your threshold for non-sexual excitement then you and me are in agreement, though I wouldn't use the idea of renourishment here though it is relevant in survival situations. But don't twist it, you are saying something more than this, your are saying that the problem of excessive ejaculation applies as a plausible cause for your own change of productivity, even though there were nothing excessive in what you did.

But that does not mean that the thoughts occurs by an intension of that thought the preceding moment, as my statement could be interpreted as. Clearer: For most if not all our intensions to be realised a thought must exist prior to the physical effect, but that does not entail that all thoughts must be intended, I would even argue that though most thoughts are not contrary to the will it is also not the direct consequence of will, arguing opposingly implies a false dichotomy of will-illwill.

@ivankiss Sometimes against the will, but since the precise thoughts we think are here for a purpose and the will is always essential to purposivity it would be hard to argue that most thoughts are not the effect of will.

A thought is a very densely packed representation of one of two things. Either A) something that you have once experienced or B) a solution to the contradictions that occurs when the things that you experience now comes in contact with A, a representation. The former goes often by the name of "idea" or "imagination", the latter goes by the name of "concept" or really: logic.