Reciprocality

There is something here, I say it is in front of me, I say it has a screen and keys, I identify it as a laptop, I partake in the universal of "laptops", the identity of laptop is independent of me, it arises out of nowhere, and the situation wants it that this in front of me is such a thing. I do not own this duration of events, it is happening somehow on its own, the I is barely even in the situation so how could it own it? It is nobody here to take away from the spontaneity of ineffable object turning into "laptop" unless it were forced and contrieved by theory, something simply harmonises without discernible intent.

I am so fucking glad I never went to university, and holy grail I would have a field day with them if I went there today. I have discovered that negative numbers are a hoax, not in relation to the positive numbers, but in opposition to them "beneath" them. That is, there is no such thing as a progressing line from -3 to +3, this is an inconsistent idea already on the face of it, since you would have to first ascend from 1 to 2 before you had the chance to conceive a -3, and this is literally universally the case for every possible human, because it is true by the definition of numbers as such. If I also introduce how infinity is reducible to proportionality of geometry, and could never hope to be even attempted in relation to progressing lines non-geometrically as is supposed meaningful by those who speaks of infinite natural numbers (1, 2, 3...n) The whole concept of an infinity of natural numbers is negated by the concept of exponentiation unless you presuppose in the definition of "numbers" things that are infinite, which would be cute. Instead there is no such thing as an uncounted number, while on the other hand there are uncounted infinities, that is, circles, triangles and distances under condition of one another. (the shapes and silhouettes must be counted, but only the logical operation in addition to that counting will make us reach infinites) The reason exponentiation negate natural number-infinity is that however much you count you can count twice that. (exponentiation is counting of counting, so the same applies for exponentiation, if you then wish to count the counting of counting then again there will always be a new dimension of counting, and I know you smirk now since you imagine that I must have negated myself by saying that there will always be a new dimension of counting, but it is I who laugh since the "always" is literally conditioned on the counting itself, and becomes a "not really" when you don't, the "always" and the "infinity" are literal subsets of the counting themselves, since though they are conditioned on them they only appear as possibilities under some of the times you do count. If you have any idea about the theories of Georg Cantor and understood them it should also be obvious that what I say do not negate his theories, nor the other way around, instead all I have done is redefine the concept of number such that IT actually becomes consistent. Numbers are non-geometrical finites of time (this is without any possible doubt correct) and geometric shapes are non-numerical proportions of space, when things appear infinite in the former domain they actually have their proper basis in the latter domain. When you define the natural numbers as infinite, they are no longer numbers, this is not opinion, all you need are some minor thinking skills, what is most curious is that all I just said has a red lining to how I solve every possible paradox, by conceiving the simplest distinction possible, going all the way back to Aristotle: idea (the number 1, the counted, containment, whole, man) and concept (conditioned conclusion, derivative, proportion, duality). Thinking about negative numbers is like thinking about negative animals, instead of just negating them. It would be like stopping at the zoo a Monday morning and then imagining negative elephants by the off chance you saw an empty cage. What is also funny is that if you really insist on thinking negative numbers (under the condition that numberlines should be infinite both ways) they actually exist on the scale of 0 to 1, since an actual "1" only exist as a 1 of 2 and thus on the "scale" of 1 to 2. That is, 1 is the actual zero-point, for division and multiplication is the only actual logic of numbers and everything logical is 1 until it becomes 2, while on the other hand everything empirical is 0 until it becomes 1. In final conclusion, it is the insistence that we should treat logic as empirical and empiry as logical that has our models confused, everything bounces of the number 1 such that the duality of multiplication and division is deconstructed, it is all just proportionality/ratio, for there is no such thing as a possible mathematical theory that is not expressible in the complete absence of anything explicitly "negative", instead it has been invented as a useful tool, but as is the case everywhere where tools of syntax is invented: it becomes real for us. Wait til I get to algebra, the literal formalised insistence on involving unfinished answers in our questions.

Life is a teaching in that though everything that matters the most comes for free the spice on top matters too, and that the former is the price for the latter.

To make it concise: there are definitions of words, but phrases are not defined, phrases refer to something above and beyond definitions, unless you mean to speak about language itself by those phrases.

@Mysterious Stranger I think that the "condition" in "human condition" is vague, do you mean by condition our inherent nature, many would recognise it this way and so would I but it could also mean "the human individual as conditioned under both his nature and his culture". If this is what is meant by "human condition" I would actually feel permitted to call it a cringe attempt at asking nothing at all yet making it appear as though something is asked. If one understood the implications of asking the latter version of the question one would not ask it, since its answers would need you to step out of your own existence and then inside it again, but do you then see the "paradox", I wonder? "how would you define the human condition?" you ask, what are you actually referring to, not just seemingly referring to? If it is human nature you mean then you are asking what is similar between us all independently of culture, but this could not possibly be a definition?

One kind of syntax is for instance the "containment" in set theory, would it be plausible that it is precisely this kind of syntax which dual-n-back improves? Since dual-n-back seems to improve our thinking over the board?

@integral Indeed. Conceptions are logic, and logic are identities under condition of 1. one another and 2. mutual negation, the more space we have the more we are able to find contradictions in statements, patterns, theories and opinions. Ive been performing complex deductions for four years straight, and it has improved my working memory both of the concepts I have been thinking but also in relation to other kinds of things, it may even be argued that the kind of thing I have been doing should be more efficient than dual n back, since structures are forming between thoughts making them imply one another in ways that dual-n-back wouldn't. All in all it is all about perpetual exercise of containing different items in the mind at once, we need syntax to do anything except the most primitive logic and our mind teaches itself new syntactical structures when it is actually put to use. A question to ask would be: if any, what kind of syntax would dual-n-back instil in us, or improve?

To summarise, new truths are created all the time, because our perspectives creates our ability to act in the world, the outcome of our acts are new truths. The perspectives themselves are not true OF anything, but the condition under which we can discover new truths. The absolute truth however, it is always, and it is immediate in all those "new truths". And this is not much of a theory either, the problem is that it is weird-sounding until it becomes obvious, @Leo Gura when you reference an understanding of truth what else than what I just stated would you mean by "understanding"?

What matters the most is not whether what you said is true of anything, but whether you actually live according to what you said, for much like how Jordan Peterson says that you do not choose what to believe in, neither do you choose what is true. If you live honestly truth will multiply on itself through you, so truth is mostly a becoming, not a being.

Sex is both a social construct, your own construct and a biological reality. These things do not exclude one another at all, sex is expressed in various ways in different domains, no two people agree what sex is, and no two people would ever be able to abstract out of an identical dataset what objective reality the idea of sex corresponds to, since no two people have lived the same life, and the objective reality of sex can not stem from a personal dataset of subjectively determined characteristics. For this reason, it would be wise to actually think about these things in terms of variables, instead of already given myths, and ask questions regarding what kind of new myths would be useful to understand these variables.

Knowledge of truth must be a dialectical method, for the immediacy of truth to be something different than that immediacy. There are no true narrative of the truth, this is the whole non-dual point, every conceivable essence you wish to "abstract" out of the immediacy is made from the ideas and logic you superimpose on it, and the truth is beyond logic.

@Leo Gura There is no you to choose what is true, it simply is what it is and then the "you" is formed after the fact. This is the reason I said what matters is that you are honest with yourself more so than anything, for if knowledge of the truth is possible then this honesty is the necessary condition. So when you say that it is more fundamental to "know" what is true and what is not this actually assumes the duality between already given truths and already given falsities, thus negating your own theory that everything is truth.

All the curves, all the silhouettes, all the colors, lights, shapes, objects, dimensions, geometries, patterns etc, it is all incredible, the way it all operates coherently or even operates coherently regardless of whether you are aware of it or not, the small little variations of the light in your surroundings and the small little variations in the causes leading up to it, the freedom you have to analyse and investigate all these things. Though as soon as you try to convince someone of it, as soon as you try to inspire others for the same realisation, that everything is perfect as it is, as soon as you tell a story about it it becomes no longer it, but seemingly something else, the beauty of it all disappears as soon as I try to make it something that it isn't, I cant avoid it. To communicate with others is in some sense manipulative, it is inherently to make the immediate reality into a reference to a similar experience of both our pasts, this is the nature of our ideas. The truth is that the abstract world is absolutely beautiful as well, in a completely different way, and so is the way it operates so fluently with all the things I mentioned first above, it is a big wondrous system in strike opposition to anything otherwise human, our insanity lies in how statements are put under doubt, how our whole assertoric landscape of expressions is perspectival and therefore impossibly true. But the things I mention here know no possible antagonist under which they can be put under doubt, to confuse its self-evidency for a want of importance is again a reference back to the perspectival world as metric of measurement, there is no possible way to obsess sufficiently over the beauty of the already given in this world, you are not partaking in that obsession you are the object of that obsession because it can only be you who carry it over from yesterday to today. The part of us which expresses these things in the forum is not the part which is aware of it, but the part which needs to be contradicted, the part which wants to experience the world in new ways under the gaze of that contradiction, and so we continue to blabber on uselessly like apes, but there is nothing to say here except for expressions of uncertainty.

Yup and wemen are like pixels

We are drawn to things for unknown reasons, and if we are drawn sufficiently to them we call them our passion. Robert Greene says that passion alone wont get you very far, that is, being draw to things does not make us proficient in relation to those things. This is self evident, ..on the other hand, passion is likely going to be necessary. Edit: but if you think pragmatically about it, you don't actually need to be proficient in your passion, and may very well be very adept in relation to this passion without ever making a burdensome chore out of it, this is unheard of of course in the domain of business and successes that Greene is so familiar with.

It will not matter whether you think of those seconds (the first and last of the universe) linearly or volumetrically, the concept of the speed of light should imply the possibility of thinking about seconds in terms of volumes. In reality however; even volumes wont suffice for the concept of time, for if it did then there could be no beginning of the universe nor any chaos theory. And so without matter and space you can think about time four-dimensionally, and with the addition of matter and space the second (the measured of time) will actually be a five dimensional entity. What I say can sound weird since we have a personal relation to time as something entirely different than spatial, but this simply cuts away information of impersonal matters.

Are there anyone here who would be interested to understand how the law of energy-conversion implies infinite consciousness? If so then hit me up or comment in the thread, it is pretty amazing, though only the implication is correct, the ground, or the "law" is false, there are no laws in the universe, and energy is not a concept but an idea, so not only does their "law" fail to be a law but it fails even at that. And that a law fails to fail is analogous to how when you try to hit a bullseye you failed even at pulling the trigger.

Now any sobriety tells us that energy is destroyed, for if we abstract from the experience of reality our idea of "energy", the only possible way to end up with this idea, and maintain in any way that the past has some reality, then though the past may still exist in terms of itself it certainly can not exist in terms of something else additionally, and so if the theory held water and, again, the past had any reality, then energy would actually increase instead of being conserved.

Okay hello there @thenondualtankie imagine a TV And lets say this tv has 50 inches diagonally Imagine now that for every time we add an additional inch the surface of the TV grows more then the last time, even though the surface grows less for every increment in proportion to the whole surface. This is literally how the universe itself works, such that the first second of the universe is bigger in proportion to the then whole universe than the present second of the universe is in proportion to the now whole universe, even though the present second of the whole universe is far bigger in itself than the first one. With that out of the way now let us investigate what we could possibly mean with something that is conserved per second under these cosmological conditions. What happens is that less energy is needed over time to preserve the structural integrity forwardly of the moment leading up to it, so since space itself can never change size (knowable a priori), it is triangulated that instead of the universe expanding it is actually the matter which is shrinking. If we now look closely on the second itself and divide it into ten we find that under the law of conservation there is an identical amount of energy in the tenth of a second as there is in a whole one, and so it goes towards infinitely small compartments, now in reality the conservation theory is false, for it fails to account for how the expressed energy of the universe is proportional to how much matter has shrunk, instead it is an equilibrium theory of structures and only under that heading supported by its scientific observations. So why is infinite consciousness then possible, if it seems to be negated by the scientific theory? Its because the whole simultaneity of the universe is contained in each part, and simultaneity does contain a whole lot of unexpressed energy still, infinitely more than any of us could handle. The whole universe beyond this immediate moment is literally an illusion, under the theory of energy conservation, since the whole time dimension must be contained in its cuts (simultaneity) of it, I argue it only is correct in relation to the future, while energy certainly is destroyed in the past (and appears not so due to the perpetual shrinkage of matter, and the scientific evidence that then supports the notion that 1kj is the same in the beginning of the universe as right now is literally what instead negates it.

So simply: Containment of set theory is syntax (knowably) Syntax is dimensional mathematics (knowably) And set theory tries to reduce non-dimensional mathematics not only to dimensionality but to a subset of dimensionality and it tries to do so unknowingly/unwaveringly and it does so blatantly, by saying of mathematical statements that their possible proofs would be negated if they weren't expressible syntactically. I absolutely love it, since its intuition is that because syntax should be open for everything then therefore whatever it is closed to must be the faulty part, but nowhere is it therefore implied that the syntax is itself its foundation, only the method of its foundation. The actual foundation are the axioms themselves, and they are true independently of the convenient addition that syntax always lends itself to their aid. If on the other hand syntax would ever be discovered to fail our axioms this would in no way express the falsity of the axioms themselves, nor would it even constitute the inconsistency of their conjunction, instead this would imply the insufficiency not of syntax as a whole but of the subsection of syntax employed: containment. To my awareness there is no fault with containment, but if there were problems with the logics of the conjunction of axioms expressed in containment, we can be certain it would be the fault of containment.

Set theory is the most ridiculous system I have come across, it attempts to reduce mathematical statements into its syntax by saying that if a mathematical conclusion can not be formed under the notion of containment then the conclusion has no foundation. Every "axiom" clashed onto its theory comes out of the logical inconsistencies of their absence, there is no end to how many axioms we may discover by reversing the order of everything like these theorists has done. So it reduces therewith logic to syntax as well, it has fooled itself into thinking that the uniformity of openness could be a foundation for discursion of closedness. Its silliness is identical with the liars paradox. It fails on every account, for nothing is logical without substance, and there are no substance in the methods themselves of its portrayal, you see the recursion of the inverse? Mathematical conclusions are literally founded on the very nature of their axioms employed as premises/conditions, all of which are dualities, through deducing those conclusions. There is no second layer of foundation, the only reason set theory seems like a good idea is because complete openness of syntax accepts every arrangement, and that nothing what so ever is possible without complete openness, but possibility is a different concept than foundation. A possibility is opposite of necessity, while a foundation has no opposite. (neither of the quasi opposites of 1. its negation (non-foundation) or 2. its instantiations are dual to it) The former is a conceptual distinction (logic), the latter is an ideal distinction (judgement), the former can not be pointed to literally, the latter can always be pointed to literally. A foundation, since its instantiations can be either possible or necessary can not be only one of them, which it would need to be for it to be identical with either, as set-theory implies. Anything (whatever it is) is either possible or necessary, while it may not be a foundation for anything logically, and since concepts has for their nature that all things without exceptions must be expressed by means of them, such that nothing in particular could ever be expressed only by one of them, so therefore are foundations, since particular things are expressed by this whole domain and nothing opposite of this domain could ever express another particular, ideas of judgement. Foundations on their own are impossible, each of them are concepts (and only the mathematical ones can be on their own) while the whole of them are an idea, the whole of foundations is the mere wish to think concepts without logic, or telling stories without performing a deduction. The whole of foundations is truly a remarkable thought entity, for it can only be a concept when it is not an idea and only an idea when it is not a concept, (it is like trying pointing to variability itself with regard to concepts yet you can not even point to any one of them), the completeness of foundations would be even more of an insane task, for it would ask of the variability that it manifested in each conceivable and unconceivable way.

@Vibroverse You imply by this that Kant were not concise, yet everything that man writes is with reference to nothing more than 1. something you can intuitively grasp and 2. with reference to these already given intuitions. That is, he adds nothing more than he needs to towards his actual and final assertions. One of his principles for instance is that no two words should ever both be used to a singular idea, this is a recipe for conciseness. The problem with his writing is inherent to the problem of syntax in natural language, and my problems in being concise stretches far beyond inherent problems of language.

@tlowedajuicemayne Isn't it interesting how your speculations could crumble on account of nothing more than 1. you realising what my question meant and 2. that this question were led on by the experience i referenced? This experience being what we often refer to as "infinity". You say thing like "given what you tried to explain above then therefore x" without actually referencing neither attempts at explaining something nor interpretations of these thereby empty attempts. It is actually these kinds of things, where instead of referencing details you reference a mere feeling, where we are left in "a deep state of confusion". It is of course very possible that the reason nobody responded to my post were that I were so confused about my experience that nothing but incoherence came out of it, yet this possibility were left entirely untouched by the precise comment which open for it, by instead of engaging supposed incoherences you do as humans have done for half a million years: make nothing but stories, myths and narratives. "If however, it was in fact a deep experience then you haven't fully understood to the point where you can convey what you mean in a clear and concise way." This presupposes that there actually comes a possible point at which we understand the experience so well that it becomes clear and concise independently of back and forth dialogue, which if I were to speculate the way you do can only imply that it is you who undermine the possibilities themselves for these kinds of experiences. "Whatever the case, I suggest you take the time out to really contemplate your experiences and take the time to learn to convey it clearly and concisely with words if you want to express it to others in that way. Of course you don't have to if you don't want to but if you dont, you will go on feeling misunderstood and ostracized by those who you express these experiences to and that's no fun. Trust me. " I thank you for the advice, I can not think of a better one! It must be a special day the day we find a better use of our time than to contemplate the social meaning of our individual experiences, where we learn its meaning not only from within it, directly, but from without it, as you suggested. So thank you, and I don't doubt that you do speak from experience, though being ostracised is an integral part of the whole process I think, even being fearful of it. "Once I stopped with that game and spent the time to learn how to properly express my experiences, then and only then could conversations occur about them." Understandable, though this is not how it works out statistically, in most cases, certainly throughout history, we learn to interpret and reinterpret our experiences through dialogue with others, this is, and should be the main focus of this very forum we are discussion through, I think.

We can all use logic to figure out that there will always be something as opposed to nothing, but it can also be directly experienced. The best way I could describe this experience is that I realise this particular consciousness is one of an never ending array of other ones, it is that array of beings which is infinite, but we all share something identical in common and it is this identical thing we tap into when the ego suddenly is afraid it might die soon if you continue to focus on it. I am scared shitless when it happens, I don't dare to delve into it, I have tried the mirror staring meditation technique and as soon as i realise that existence will take on an infinite number of different manifestation the iris expands too, I find that interesting, anyone else noticed something similar or reflected on the same meaning of "the infinite"?

The spontaneity of the composite of ideas is as much an affinity for ideas through composites, their universal form is variability, and their mutual relation is retrospectively disjunctive, while their posterior relation is non-disjunctive and opens up for new ideas. Or in the concrete, light bronze and dark gold are ideas in an array of a finite sum of judgements under large quantities of possible variations, outside this finitude nothing is possible except for in relation to new experiences.