Reciprocality

@BlueOak If the fugue state I referred to either does not explain the behaviour or does not actually exist in those who behaved in the given way then what would be the matter that could be refuted. Nothing that I borught up has to do with whether sitting on a park bench in a given way affects someone greatly, but instead precisely the opposite, how a state of mind represented by how someone sits on a park bench can affect them greatly. It is always possible that egos are involved or indeed the main concern where causal speculation takes place, it is besides the point.

The thing that makes the animal which you would otherwise think of as intelligent quite mediocre and pale is that it actually cares about being in agreement with others. When we ask "why do humans care about the construction of agreements almost all the time?" what quality answers do we provide that actually has explanatory power? We may reevaluate the question and ask instead "what about the context a human finds itself in is removed if they never had the affinity for agreement to begin with?" or "what characterises the phenomenal impulses of people when they perceive or relate to strangers such that agreements (as opposed to something else) could neutralise these impulses?" and "if the tool by which the impulses are neutralised becomes the means for that end in general then wouldn't people seek agreement not informed first and foremost by what is true but instead to counteract the impulses? The keyword here which exposes the possibility of relevant observations is "impulses", have you observed in yourself something antagonistic, something ugly, something hostile towards others? What if certain phenomenal impulses akin to these descriptions would answer precisely the first question above, why most the individuals pertaining to an extremely intelligent species could fall so short?

@Phil King yes what the hell The assumption is that we as a general baseline value civility, do you do this? Okay moving on. A question humans sometimes ask themselves is this: is too much of a good thing still a good thing? And then let me add to that: is the ability to associate different things with one another, say you associate the streets with absence of violence or general danger, itself sufficient to make good decisions? I can then translate the latter question into the form of the former: is relying on the beneficial ability to associate variables a good stategy if it is done excessively? If not then let us go back to my example of someone sitting carefree or in their own world on a bench in the middle of a street in a big city with plenty of people walking around them, they would certainly rely on their ability to associate variables to do so, but is this sometimes an example also of doing so excessively?

@Danioover9000 This branch of people that you brought up, particularly victorians, were excessive in a way that has to do with being different from another contemporary group, where they idealised certain behaviour and attempted to internalise it and become that behaviour while judging others who did not successfully do so. Civility in general however can be excessive without the causes for a certain form of civility having to be excessive like above, if u know what I mean, we can all conceive of the distinction between pretentiousness/pompousness and normality, what I attempted to induce in your mind were the possibility of an overly civilised version of the latter, normality. And to your comment on moral degradation, yes the force is strong in that shit, I do think it is a separate topic though and that there are plenty of different causes.

@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.