Reciprocality

@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.

This is horseshit, there is literally nothing here to repair, what is happening is that your concepts are altering how your consciousness experience reality. Reexamine your principles, ask yourself from which source you allowed yourself to believe that in contradiction to the condition for all evolution it would benefit those ancestors giving offspring to wait long before each time they got the chance to produce said offspring. What you should try to do is go a long time without food instead of sex, and learn that your ballsack is the last thing on your body which needs to be renourished.

There are two types of people, those who suffer from the knowledge of inconsistency in their character and those who suffer as consequence of not knowing it. In either case you are both partially blessed and partially cursed, I happen to be of the former kind and your post indicates that you may be too. The reason I say this is that there is no chance that ejaculation is sufficient reason for feeling worse as consequence, so since we can be sure that it has something to do with your psychology and your psychology being nothing but a composition of principles and there being nothing in principles on their own which can change how you see things there must have occurred a contradiction between one of them, perhaps abstinence, and your action. It would be magically weird if these contradictions did not have an emotional or conscious effect on you, as weird as an object not falling to the ground when thrown.

The relations between each variable behind each separate number beneath are distinct, but the things that relate are identical. 1. sufficient similarity between two things 2. recognition of the whole through the part 3. accident inhering to an idea In contrast to what I have done in previous years on this forum, rarely to any success, I will just state what I think without justifying it until someone asks relevant questions or has their own perspective on the statement. Whether what I am saying first above is correct under any given corresponding composition of definitions is verifiable in experience, and though nobody asked this is also the reason philosophy is so great, we don't have to learn anything new to know something new. Edit: keyword: spontaneity.

On my better days I sit in complete silence, not moving a muscle except those behind the eyes, lowering the threshold for excitement reconfigures the mind to be fluid (remember easily/vividly) even at the slightest movement. Edit: it is first under these conditions that birds and insects, trees and weather, waves and ocean becomes truly meaningful, we are of course, due to the disgusting current state of affairs, with rare exceptions removed from this wealth, this divine source of energy and intrinsic meaning.

You are either gonna experience reality through concepts or you will experience yourself through reality, I would suggest minimising the latter, but due to the aforementioned weakness, were you also to lose contact with the emergent behaviour of humans, are bound to fail minimising it and repeat the cycle of self-search. Your concepts are your hardfought medium into the world, wisdom is for those who knows this, everyone else are children still in their twenties. We are here to grow by experiencing and reflecting, there are nobody for you to convince of the appearance of these, but if you pay attention to the primary human characteristic you will surely see that they have all here said backwards, and will employ the universal in each word to concealed ends, drawing thereby from you the energy they will lose by tomorrow. Pay a little bit of attention around you and it is all a horror show, so if you have this divine power of no longer needing affirmation yet fail to recognise the rarity of it then you are likely to make it go to waste. My method for sufficient distance from others is that I differentiate between the universal meaning of each word and my own analysis of its initial requirement, after time I will then spontaneously think the analysis upon hearing the word and answer instead to it than those whose intensions were concealed.

Us and the objects, they are of something that is one and the same. It is impossible to believe that this which both are made of is different than it is, because the very substance of the belief (as well as every conceivable belief) is itself identical to it. The naive materialist can only disagree with the first assertion above if it contradicts itself, and it can only contradict itself if it is contrived in mere abstract fantasy (by making predicates out of subjects). If then the naive materialist when out and about has no fantasy at all, as he can not have except for during his thinking, which he rarely does any of, then he relates no differently to the world than does the finest monk, they both simply are and no contradiction ensues.

The dialectics of our mind is a product of our incapacity to have a sense of self merely through addition of pieces, I am saying that other peoples perspective on us has a deep effect on us because they can see the whole of us through the part while we can not, humans were developed precisely in such a way that this weakness in each agent is balanced out by the strength of the emergent whole of these, that the emergent whole becomes contained in each singular agent and that they rest content with the result. A spiritual path seems to me to be met with in those who refuse to accept this weakness, who would be ashamed to lay bare for everyone but oneself to witness.

In almost everything I do deeper intents remain hidden, if I study my body language I find again and again that it is motivated to say something that contradicts my speak, would that contradictory subliminally ignited intension not be the kind of thing giving rise to the appearances other humans always intuits the whole of me through? The whole of which I on the other hand can not even see by adding piece by piece?

That it happens is unanswerable, irreducible, mystical. My emotional reflection is that it is astounding that something mystical can happen, but how could it not?