Reciprocality

@Jannes @Thought Art If you change the axioms regarding the syntax then 2+2 could be 22, but I don't think as Jannes suggests that by changing the simple axioms of math you could get 22 by adding 2 and 2. If instead you create arbitrary composite axioms then you can always get 22 by adding 2 and 2, the challenge then would be to have a consistent system. A simple axiom would be something like "the smallest conceivable quantity can not be a plurality", this may be provable within a system of other axioms but it is also what we should call simple because the concept of the predicate and the concept of the subject can not apply to some experiences as opposed to others (applies to all experiences without exception). A predicate in general states that some subject is in some way, a particular predicate is the given way one says that the subject is, a subject can be anything.

Most people need others to think effectively, if you want to brag about deconstructing yourself from your culture you will need to learn the dark side of the force, thinking for yourself. The way you do it is similar to how you learn to ride a bike, first you may need a push but then you have to give yourself the push, if those in or outside your life you have known for decades are those against which you measure whether you have come to your own conclusions or not then you haven't. To think for yourself is to be on the offence, it is to build up the thing you are attacking in such a manner that it can only fall from specialised weapons, if the weapons you are using are lent from somewhere else then the thing you were attacking were too. A forum, a dialogue, anything to this effect will produce lazy minds necessarily, it transmutes the object of offence into something that it is not the same way semantics are created in the mind of a child.

We are here now because the alternative is our own construct and nature does not wait for constructs. Our childhoods relation to reality were physical, it is the foundation of our thinking, any attempt to destroy the foundation destroys itself first. Physicality is not a synthesis of properties in a mindstate, it is substantial on its own, the ego is the most efficient and least contrived way to deal with the existence of physical reality. The matter of non-duality is independent of our acceptance of physical substance and independent of the characteristics of our ego.

There will always be good reasons for narratives and copiums, a supposedly actualised forum delves into the reasons as opposed to the copium.

Most of you have an American collective unconscious ingrained in your mind, which means that your self-identity, your ability for reflection, analysis and your ability to think in general stands in a dialectic relation to an american unconscious, that is, that collective unconscious if feeding you the problems you are trying to solve and then in parts produces the solutions. You refuse to understand what I am saying unless it fits within the narrative of that unconscious. Everything you are doing on this forum feeds into the problem.

Concepts that did not initially directly describe things in phenomenal experience are without exception solutions to past contradictions/problems, every description of the world by means of these, such as "infinity" is thusly a logicism.

The intensity or magnitude of your consciousness is independent of your circle jerks on forums. The question and possibility of an intensional god is subverted by a mere phenomenal "I am god" account, category error.

The part of you which is able to imagine others is not what others are, you simply do not know how others are like, you are literally alone and separated. That, again, has nothing to do with non-duality.

They are not self-referential like we are, they just are, and that is non-duality. If you make a theoretic framework of spirituality beyond direct experience then you will falsely imagine that other humans are not awake, and this will become your insanity.

Most humans out there in the world you are too narcissistic to face are living a fully actualised life because of their self-conceit.

Just as the physical universe is a quantity of extension your consciousness is a quantity of intensity. But it is not so intense that it is infinite, it is instead the thinking mind which attempts to compare the mindstate of purposivity with the mindstate lacking purposivity, the latter is given in intensity what it takes away from the former in its differentiation. Purposivity is found in everything humans are doing at every single instant of their life, if you take 4 from 5 and toss those 4 away it would be very weird if you still had 5, just as weird would it be if your consciousness did not change when it is decoupled from the guiding principle of life, purposivity. Purposivity is everywhere present in abstractions and thinking, thus when you take away purposivity from actuality you can not be left with something conceivable or thinkable such as infinity.

Most of you are brutally forcing yourself into a state of stagnation because of the attempt on your part, and I kid you not, to be coherent. You have a principle against your own nature, and every time you see in yourself a sign of this nature you judge it. You then rationalise that your conceptions of infinity and the absolute pertains to experiences literally so that the the inhibition is justified. It is a product of unresolved misanthropy, why else would you have a principle against yourself, know that your principle is deemed to fail, for it needs itself to work. Egoism and self-delusions goes hand in hand with the deepest consciousness, as does physical reality with mind.

Is it not curious how nature in all its infinite bliss becomes the narrative surrounding of you, all by itself? It is almost like it does it for a purpose. Whatever you do you are confined within limits, will you be the intention of an appearance or will you intend to appear as though you are without the intention to appear? Could you possibly change the course of natural things, could you change who you already was into becoming someone who did not want to appear, why except for the purpose of appearance would you possibly do so? Please respond if you know of an answer.

Awakening is not something positive, it is negative. If you were dreaming and then the dream disappeared the mind-state of the disappearance would negate the dream, as will narratives be negated when they are no longer taken for reality. Your conception of the infinite and the absolute are terms that deals with the thing that instead of becoming aware of itself through its relation to other things becomes aware of itself in the absence of both them and the relation. Just as a container gets filled by a waterhoe are you filled by a narrative of yourself, imagine what happens if when you pour the water in the container the water does not spread, the water would naturally become denser during the pouring, this is how nature operates everywhere without exception. The fewer the narratives of yourself spontaneously occur the more multiplied your consciousness will become at that time. This is one step away from a proper conception of time, but let us not get carried away.

Have you observed that people naturally enjoy conversations? Have you ever reflected on the mechanism in conversations which makes them enjoy it so much? It is simple, they enjoy it because it gives the most with the least effort, much like "laws" of physics or path to least resistance, and the reason conversations gives them so much is that the ideas in their heads does not need to be built from the ground up but ignites spontaneously due to the shared language. This spontaneity is to the man tearing down another's sandcastle what the inverse is to the man building it up, in one way but not in the other. Can you spot the similarity? The analogy? Why is it that we say that it is easier to defend yourself than to attack someone else? Why is it easier to contradict someone else than to be the one who asserted something? I will refrain from given my perspective on it, but would enjoy to see what someone else can come up with, it all ties ultimately to the title.

@Yimpa You are coming to acceptance of something that can be wrong, do you do this often? When I ask what a self is I do not intend to ask what forms it can take, instead I ask what is the same between all or most of those forms. q: "what is a cup?" ... a: " a cup can be blue and it can be big!"

@Yimpa is that right

The self will need to be filled, and will feel terrible when it is not filled, the self is healthy when it is a dependent being. Dependent on x, independent of y.

The self is to each of your concepts what the ineffable quality of them is to the properties they entail. Imagine for instance if you are in the middle of a conversation and words does not present themselves to you where they are supposed to, or if late at night when you lay in the bed the concepts does not automatically co-ordinate and present you with new perspectives, all of these retardations happens as consequence of the disillusionment of the self, because the self is what nature is in need for to operate efficiently and ultimately at all. The properties of a concept/predicate, say thickness and colour, would not come together at the right moment by force, and the necessary spontaneity for them to come together is that in the predicate which is ineffible. The same is true for the concepts themselves, they would not come together in the right moment if the ineffable self inhibits itself. I do not deny that the relations between things are on some level illusory, and that only direct experience is truth, I deny the assumption that truth is more important than purpose -- which is what you propose by inhibiting yourself. Freedom from self-inhibition is curiously more self-less, it gives others your nature raw and makes them learns quicker, makes you grow quicker, makes you learn faster.

Spirituality is all fun and games until you no longer keep separate things separate. When identities between things of different set of properties begin to converge in your head this is not non-duality this is stupidity. That all is one is indeed true but is not contingent on "all" being the same kind of thing.

@Water by the River of course there is someone home, these "sacred sightings" becomes memories for the same self who with few sparks intended to move their eyes. The difference is that the sightings does not connect to hundreds of disjoint and conflicting narratives. The man is one with his surroundings, and he is one with all our and our ancestors selfs, telos, but he is so from a particular position, all connecting (likely later) to who he ones was, but in his case (in this particular timeframe) the connection is not in contradiction while in my and many others case it is.

Dope thread Does there exist a semiotic language for body language beyond the scarce terms in natural language?

To not merely do that which is the most efficient in the shortest time possible is the nature of telos, for humans it takes the form of abstraction, for animals the form of physical intuitions telescopically, to us an archaic form of cognition. All the universes with their matter and energy does the most efficient thing in each respective time continuum, telos does more than this, the ego is the character trillions of such instants of telos took, the will of the ego is the current and kernel of your existence. The ego can become its own end or it can become the means for the deepest abstractions, most significant perspectives, most wonderful creations or truest world-views. If you are an enjoyer of the best of art, music, movies, societies etc. then you are the enjoyer of the product of the biggest egos, awaringly or not, if you want do do something great then your ego is your guiding force and you will have to allow it to look ugly.

The more perfect the curvature of its wheels the more time it will take for a car to stop, the nature of human will is like this. The strongest and most clear will does that which is the most efficient but not in the shortest time possible (a square wheel would make the car stop instantly), instead it does it in the longest time possible by abstracting the furthest. And this is the least efficient thing it can do right this moment.

One of the bigger topics in Leo Guras teachings has been the drawing of distinctions. So how do we do it? Phenomenologically speaking all things are distinct either in appearance or in position, but this is not really the kind of distinction humans gravitate towards. It is not essential for the attribute of a good leader that he is positioned here and not there, or that he appears this or that way, and it is this relationship between attributes and the attributed that I imply by whatever is excluded from the domain that whatever were denoted by "phenomenologically speaking" is partial of. How can we have clarity in our mind of the concept of a good leader if the concept can not be given to us through the inessential properties of position and appearance? How do we have clarity of any concept if nothing particular instantiates it, and how do we even have that concept in the first place? And if something particular instantiates our concept isn't the relationship between that particular thing and our concept merely conjunctive as opposed to true? And lastly, if indeed the concept is a true property of the particular and concrete thing, that is, if the distinctions we have drawn are more than fantastical, how do we know?