Reciprocality

@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?

Perhaps the most important talent you can have, whether taught or inborn, is the ability to know when to give people the benefit of the doubt if a statement appears illogical to instead of contradicting them imagine that the concrete situation they refer to is distinct from the concept or phrase they use such that the statement actually makes sense. It appears that American men, more so than any other demographic in the general west, has a poor talent for this. This will not typically be the first thing you think, since your memories are naturally disposed to make it apparent if something that someone says contradicts such a memory, and these memories are precisely the necessary medium through which language becomes interpretable and actually meaningful at all. Self-awareness is the ingredient for such a talent, you can not successfully force yourself to behave this way, it must become spontaneous. What are your thoughts on this?

When we ask "why do I have thoughts" or "how come the thoughts I have are such and such instead of differently?" would it not be weird if the following did not answer these questions? When we have an experience this will be easily available in our mind in the following moments though the experience is no longer literally there, when in a later moment we experience something akin to what we experienced in the former, say first we experienced a blue candle and then a pillar in the next moment, then as we experienced the second object our mind recalls spontaneously the first object. What can be inferred from this situation? I would first say that since we can analyse the respective objects to be similar, sharing a cylindrical shape, plausibly implies that this is the reason that the spontaneity occurred. Secondly I would generalise from this occurrence a principle of sufficient similarity for spontaneity and ask how generally this principle can be applied to instances of cognition? Does it apply when we listen to our favourite music from ten years ago? Does it apply to the doorhandle as we enter the door? What about human faces? Or our cat? Perhaps a distinct smell we smelled on the corner of a street last week inducing certain memories from our childhood? We rarely recall something were the cause were not external, can we not in such moments of recall find that in the two distinct identities which is similar? What kind of attribute would such similarities be made of? Could these attributes be made out of distinct parts and form a composite (hetereogeneity) or can they always be reduced to a quantity either of mathematical character of extension or a character of intensity? (homogeneity) I don't know about you but I have begun reflecting on a wide variety of perceptions during my day and the principle seems to hold true of them all, but one kind of thought is distinct from these, and can not have any discernible property whether mathematical or intensive, it is the thought of "existence", since it has no properties then it can not be thought through a spontaneity of sufficient similarity and since accident denotes the relation between all things which are inessential for another thing and that thing then properties are accidents of existence. But since as we know from the aforementioned principle of sufficient similarity an actual property though it is accidental for the predicate to which it spontaneously gives rise then it is plausible that the same kind of relationship is true between predicates and existence itself. If that is true, that is that there can not be existence except for through a property and any property would suffice, then since as we can theorise on valid grounds that the predicate requires will or purposivity (primary operation/function of consciousness) for the sufficient similarity to even occur and the very properties available for such a similarity is already conditioned on past will then how far of a reach would it be to say that the same purposivity can be said to "hide" behind the predicates themself, some composition of which, as already argued are necessary?

@Razard86 If you are hinting to the self-referential nature of the spontaneity of conversation then yes I noticed it, that I am curious to know what someone else thinks about why we in general are curious to know what someone else thinks I perform the very thing on which I base the question. What is unclear however (in the case I noticed the right hint above) is why you would hint at that which is the very observation I based my questions on instead of engaging the questions? If on the other hand you were hinting to the nature of self-referential in general then the last statement in the original post already did so, In that case it would be very unclear why instead of affirming my perspective directly (and hopefully extrapolating on it) you ask me to notice what I myself had already hinted to?

Spontaneity, predicate, idea, judgement and sufficient similarity Takes each the form of deduction and induction of/for particulars and universals Always with a purpose, always for a reason. The always of both are self referential, inductive and deductive. The man who thinks the universal knows the virtually infinite, this is a natural infinite.

My well being, so far as it is contingent, is contingent not only on food, water and sleep but on interconnections or understanding. I feel well when I understand and the better I understand the more well I feel.

In other words: your question is absurd, that which is given can neither be something nor nothing. That which is given can not be in a way. Saying that there is something and not nothing presupposes that the concept of variation is a true attribute of the substrate of phenomena (I use the word "given" merely to refer to that which is actual without attributing it anything, the word "something" can be used this way too but my interpretation is that it is not generally so). Edit: and as soon as you refrain from this presupposition of variation then the question too is nullified. Let me clarify: refraining from presupposing that the given is a something (it being a "something" entails that it could have been a different thing, again variation) transforms the question into "why is there the given and not no given?" and I argue that if the given could not be differently and the only alternative is that it was not at all then since "nothing/no given" amounts to the concept of "negation" and the concept of negation is conditioned on some given then therefore the question of "why there is something rather than nothing" does nothing more than state "there is a given and I can think of a negation in general" . But due to your human intelligence you will like your ancestors did 30k years ago though these with regard to the concept of god induce its existence on grounds that all things have a cause even though evidence only affirms that some things do. That is, you induce that since some things can be negated then therefore all things can be negated, and do it unwaveringly. Yep I did the thinking, I'm correct.

Yes why is something at all? Funny thing is that when we first discover that it is necessary for something to be in some way as opposed to nothing ever being then we can afterwards figure out that it is the "something" that is contingent on the instantiation "this given way" of "some way", in other words, "something" is merely a concept. That is, it is not that something as opposed to nothing is metaphysically necessary as were first concluded, but that "something" is a logically necessary variable distributed on every actual data. The important following questions entails logically: A) is anything actual metaphysically necessary? B) is every abstraction purposive? and C) will consciousness be the connection between the subject of A and B in all worlds? An important definition: Metaphysical necessity must be distinguished from logical necessity, the former denotes things which does not need premises, validity nor computation to be necessary, the latter is contingent at least on both premises and validity (being a guaranteed conclusion from premises), though arguably not on computation. This is not merely sophisticated abstraction, when/if you understand what I am saying about the initial question asked in the thread turning in on itself then you will take the possibility of the culturally inherited ideas of substances and god more seriously/very seriously.

@Arthogaan Okay I have to add this, if you in a different situation were to say that c) existence is unthinkable then this affirms de facto that d) constructs are subordinate, which contradicts your assertion that "everything is a construct". The two statements c and d bare equivalent, and the apparent convoluted language in the prior comment shows you why.

@Arthogaan A) The reality which the constructs are contingent on is gone, all we have now in reference to that reality are the constructs, but this does not mean that the reality were initially a construct. B) You are flipping things now, whatever is here now is as you say contingentless, but this which is here now is not a construct. Did you see the problem? If everything is a construct then "construct" loses its meaning and is precisely unthinkable, if you want to assert that you are experiencing the construction of everything then you are placing the concept prior to the experience such that it could have been that there were construction without experience, yet if we investigate what a construct is we find that it means nothing unless it is contrasted with that precise thing you are predicating it of. How do we know this? Because the dichotomy construct/non-construct is conditioned on a logical operation of 1. sufficient particularisation of subject, 2. law of excluded middle, 3. principle of maintenance of identity and 4. law of noncontradiction, such that something, whatever it may be, is not both a construct and not a construct. All these principles and laws are not something you need to follow, but something that your mind does spontaneously, you could not think the concept of a construct if there weren't subjects which fell outside it. Following from the prior logic: The only thing you can not think is that which has no opposite, the true self or simply: existence. I wont blow my own horn too much but if you truly grokked the above you would create a lot of clarity in the mind.

I am often reminded of death now, not in a way which makes me uneasy or sad like it sometimes did before, but in a way which makes it very clear to me what matters and what don't. The mental gymnastics of appearances don't matter much any longer, its a weird drug during those years appearances matters most. Some days even appears as something sacred, as a surplus to what I have already had. I don't dare to expect anything, it would remove me from this very weird gift around me. It literally will not matter how you conceptualise metaphysics, it is baboonery in comparison to living right now, unless you truly value the next generations beyond yourself.

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