Reciprocality

Your are just talking shit with no clear vision of the way of things. In the actual world people have to go through stages of development, if you study people and their patterns of behaviour it will become obvious. Lets call it an insight!

@Bazooka Jesus Thoughts are many things, also things beyond these effortless ideas we believe are true of the independency of things. We have for instance a clear notion of the difference between a harry potter and a J. K Rowling, the former thought don´t trick us into thinking we can actually find a wizard, but the latter thought not only makes us into thinking a) that we can find the author of Harry Potter but also b) that this thought is the Author herself in some or other way, it is first when we believe in b that we are tricked if we actually later on confirmed the existence of the author. So to conclude, I don't think it is the thoughts themselves that fool us, as you implied, but that it is how they correspond to silhouettes, shapes and processes. Though it certainly is jaw dropping!

Your whole life you have identified yourself in opposition to the things in the immediate totality, this is what an ego is, but you are instead the plurality of these mutually exclusive ideas, when you say you are anti-trump you are actually also pro-trump, you are the notion itself you have of those you define yourself in opposition to, you are the whole thing, both on an intellectual level and in the concrete world. The ego is a myth you create right now, this immediate totality is not about you, and that feels amazing.

This means you are the bird, it is your body. This is the case right now. Our consciousness grows on itself when instead of thinking that the bird is an independent entity we realise our true nature as this whole thing, we get more space for just being whole instead of creating ego out of the rejection of the bird.

Wherever your eye takes you, there is a silhouette composed of curves of many kinds, there is color and light intensity, and then out of nowhere POOF does an idea appear for you, and it happens so automatically it feels like this idea bust be true of the silhouette itself. This feeling of "it must be true of the real world", concretely: "there must be a bird over there" is inevitably your challenge to overcome. It is precisely when we overcome it that duality ceases.

Solipsism is a contradiction. It asserts that the question were ever whether other people are a part of this totality we call "our mind", but this is ridiculous and has no bearing on the actual question, for whether or not the appearance of other people are only our mind it is still possible that there are other people, just that these "other people" are not the appearance of them. It is not hard, give yourself a few minutes, reread that statement till it sinks in cus its not an opinion.

Solipsism confuses the realisation that a) other people are our ideas and senses with a thesis of how b) there cannot be something hiding behind their appearance. But everything in our lives implies that there is someone hiding behind the appearance of other people, and that what hides behind this appearance shares with us many of the same indivisibles. If you want to know what I mean by indivisibles I can explain that too, some call them substances, axioms, substrates, but "indivisibles" is more metaphysically neutral it seems.

@tlowedajuicemayne Of course I am lost in thought, they create narratives, these narratives then becomes what the ego is attached to and is afraid of losing in the experienced I referenced. Don´t we agree to this? And if so then why would you point out the obvious instead of investigating the questions sprung out of it?

And also, if that of which we are insightful is not beyond us but really inside us, since there is only us, then how can it both be a new thing while non the less being a part of what we already are? This becomes especially suspicious when if we correctly understand logic as acquisition of what were already the case only seen in a new way, as being the most congruent with a monism, while a perpetuating incoming of insight is more aligned with a theory of dualism.

@Leo Gura That would be logic. Let us say you imagined how it is like to be a bird, and then suddenly you realised out of a sudden without any experience of flying nor by means of any deduction that birds have mad balancing skills, then only to afterwards realise that birds must have mad balancing skills because to fly is to have no ground support. Now you would have an insight into the way of birds. Would it not be an insight into the nature of insight when we find the conclusion to follow from the premises even though we skipped the premises, would it not be an insight into the nature of insight to find that insights are conclusions without premises, and to discover this through logic? And if this were NOT an insight into the nature of insight then what is the nature of insight, if not the ability to draw conclusions without needing to bother with their conditions? If you did accept that it were an insight into the nature of insight then you also accepted that you used logic to acquire an insight, in which case it would be false to define an insight as a conclusion that were not deduced from premises. You are left then where you must accept that insights, if they do have the nature above, can not be acquired through an additional insight, so of what nature then are insights in addition to that nature? On the other hand, how is it possible to know anything without insight, as you must accept as possible if a nature of insight could be acquired without insight, if you also wished to maintain the definition of insight not being built premise upwards. @The Renaissance Man Is insight always true? If truth is a condition for one to consider something an insight then does it first become an insight when you reason logically about it to confirm its truth? Or is it insight that is a condition for truth? If so then is it an old insight or an immediate insight that is the condition for truth? And if it is an immediate insight that is the condition for truth then how do you distinguish between a false fantasy and an insight? And if insight is a self-evident immediate truth, that needs no logical justification, how composite can such an insight be? Could that immediate self-evident truth of an insight contain ideas like grass, planets, birds or the behaviour of people? How many such self evident insights would you be able to hold without needing to reaffirm them through logic before your thought patterns became unintelligible for others or yourself? Do these insights function as axioms due to their self-evidency by means of which you can gain new insight, if so then how does the mind glue together these self-evident truths, is it through language?

There is a reality beyond the immediately given, but it is not a thing in itself, instead it is composed of axiomatic subjects, this is the composition of creatures in whose mind there can exist an interpretation, essence or story of what "you" are to them, through mutually exclusive interpretations will people in social groups approach the essence of their subject, which in this example were you. The independent "reality" of you do not exist in the world, instead a contingent reality of you becomes through the intelligence of social dynamics. In addition, you change by the feedback of that becoming. ^ All of this is actually self evident, it goes without saying, i feel silly for having said it for this reason, yet it has to be said and is true of every conceivable thing.

Truth and falsity is precisely such a duality which can not be immanent, that is, that something had the possibility to be false means that you put up standards that it may fail to meet, these standards are taken from the pool of axiomatic subjects but lose their nature as substance immediately upon predication of new subjects. That is, there is in the application of standards a delaying of what is otherwise effortless, a resignation of what is immediately given to that which is mediately given, a procrastination of sorts, an expectation of future events, a becoming and when taken to extremes: never to have been. This does not mean that there aren't immanent truths, only that there are no things opposite of such immanence, in fact, not even the concept of negation, which is the only possible kind of "nothing" and is therefore the evidence of the impossibility of an actual state of complete absence, is beyond immanence.

Few days ago: "Axioms precede definitions, they are subject and predicate in unity, this is the meaning of self-subsistence. This is the inverse of substance, that is, self-subsistence is something without predicates." Today: "If you believe these axioms have anything in themselves to do with predicates and properties then I don't know what more I can do, you are just inconsistent on purpose at that point." Semantically these two statements ^ are inconsistent, but since I would never dare to assert anything without logical reason we must resolve it by creating distinctions. The axiomatic subjects I spoke of earlier, each of which are conceptual dualities and of a reality beyond your personal power, yet given to thought only through that personal power, are conceptual-substance, subsistence and immanent truth, when they are applied as predicates it is never they that are true or false, but instead the subjects on/of which they are applied that are either owed or not owed such predication. A state of something is a process, and NOT that something. Accidence vs Substance Truth vs Falsity.

It is literally impossible that I'm not 100% correct, put it all together and you have the method by which paradoxes are solved.

Examples of axiomatic predicates: (note that some such axioms amounts semantically to definitions, and are therefore thinkable in both directions) (you should also note that these statements can involve mere ideas, instead of concepts) You can insert subject of choice. - I am a man - A circle is always 360 degrees - There are paradoxes - Mortality - Insanity Examples of axiomatic subjects: (this is what an axiom actually is) Circle vs Line Contradiction vs Coherence Up vs Down Past vs Future Degree of rotation vs Extention of motion Whole vs Part Unit vs Metric Truth vs Falsity If you believe these axioms have anything in themselves to do with predicates and properties then I don't know what more I can do, you are just inconsistent on purpose at that point. The axioms can not be true under conditions, that is the very nature of axioms, they are instead conditions for conditioned truth, it is not that we fail at justifying them as is the case with the mere "axiomatic" predicates but that they are instead the oxygen to our lungs, immanent truth.

There are two kinds of logic, that is, two kinds of guaranteed conclusions, the one rests on a foundation you take as synthetically true predicate, the other rests on a foundation without predication. A foundation without predication is conceptual-substance, that is, a mere wish to think a duality without reference to the inconsistencies this duality were once made as solution for. The conclusions reached by means of the former are always valid when the premises are, the conclusions reached by the latter are never true of anything, for mere logic is only an engagement with the universal form of thought, the execution of non-contradiction, or simply: the being of intellect. Non-duality of object and subject bares striking similarities to pure logic, they are both states emptied of content, so too is true of a mind at rest, where though nothing is imagined the condition for imagination (as intelligence itself) is self-evident. When I were a child I used to wonder "what really is the difference between closing my eyes and being dead" not noticing before after the fact that the question itself were one of the infinite of ways this too, in a state without seeing, were different from death. Modern Philosophy is in the burdensome task of producing the offspring of the former kind of foundation by means solely of the latter one, while Philosophy Proper asks no question it can fail to answer. Faith is the only method by which, through myth and psychological conscience (as the content and form of inner balance), anything discovered through pure logic by means of pure concept, as mere production of conceptual-substance, becomes truth-functional. The distinction between faith and belief is in fact impossibly conceived (in philosophy) before one rejects faith through the differentiation of 1. axiomatic predicate and 2. axiomatic subject. Outside philosophy this distinction of faith and belief is warranted already through justification or lack thereof, and it is this latter version of the distinction which is misapplied to either a) axiomatic predicates of philosophy, since it is impossible to justify such a predicate and therefore b) conclusions derived from these predicates. Mysticism is the only destinations from where both kinds of axioms are let go of, and no synthetic proposition, nor the set of them all, are accepted to ever capture the immensity of reality, nihilism is a prolonged state of dread of this realisation, and realism the opposite, wherein not only the immensity of reality is captured but it is captured through reference to the mere power of judgement. Do you have any idea the amount of thinking it took me to discover something so simple as the semantic difference between an axiomatic subject and an axiomatic predicate, and the feeling when you finally have arrived in explicit duality where you only up until then had been in intuition?

Sometimes I wonder if anyone of you understand that your particular self, and this particular consciousness you have now runs on borrowed time and will quite dramatically never get a second chance and how all spiritual mumbo jumbo (sorry couldn't help myself) is a defence mechanism against this insane realisation. And that it is this precise realisation that constitutes the condition for a possible enlightenment.

@Enlightement Is that right, well if I asked what is most important: water or the sun? Would you jump the gun and tell me that if right there and then you were thirsty you´d say "water", and this should somehow make me more wise concerning the question itself, that you were thirsty? It is not that I find it absurd, it is that it becomes absurd through reasoning out your premises, there is no singular rule which works for everyone like you imply, instead some are individualistic and others aren't.

@Enlightement I think your question is absurd, and that what you are actually asking is how to learn who you are, which is why I cant answer your question, only you will find out if you are a community person or individualistic. I for instance am embarrassingly individualistic, and if I were to value community virtues over individual virtues I would, explode, or something? You can not learn who you are except for through being challenged, how to challenge yourself I don't know, but since you have already pointed to the duality itself of the individual vs the collective as important it may benefit you to be challenged in both areas. When you exemplified your question it become even more absurd, I don't know who our "friend" is and I don't know which "community" we exist in, logic must not be used before we are given a material to work with. If we treat the friend and the community as mere variables it would again be hard to say what you should do, who do you want to be? What are your goals in life, are there any clear characteristics we can work with?

Robotics like this is cringe, its inevitable yet as a product uncreative, the only creative part of the robotic process is what will be hidden from view and is contained only in those who made theories for how to make it. Though even this hidden "creativity" is just explicit logical reasoning and pattern recognition. If there will be humans for another thousand years "our" robots will look like a reinvention of the wheel, yet these futuristic humans will also be limited in ways humans have always been limited, I think it is wise to focus on and learn to grow from a love and direct experience of these inherent limits. Robotics of the kind above is a self-obsession. It wont have my applause before it makes a humanoid robot that is indistinguishable from us in physical appearance yet three or four times as strong in most ways, wait, is that even possible?

That god only helps some and not others is an expression of how without dualities there would never be anything. If he "helped" nobody then there would be nobody. We are helped into existence

Axioms are personal entities and have only intentional character, extensional character is approached through inductive justification, never reached. Philosophy has nothing to do with the latter, and only every anything to do with the former, which is why, even if I have solved philosophy, other people can only refuse so under their axioms and what becomes inconsistent definitions. Unless they intuit axioms and experience therwith a world that I do not. It is only possible to ask questions based on bringing life to axioms, their "philosophical questions" are rarely questions at all, but at best expressions of awe and wonder.

There are two kinds of intuitions, 1. axiomatic intuition, that is, of indivisibles and homogenous things. 2. material intuition, which without following logical steps concludes in some or other way correctly. The former is always subject, the latter always predicate.

Personally I think in whole statements, or something like that, I am never and have never been in in confusion regarding the difference between my thought and the word I use to refer to it, which is why these kinds of things comes so easy. The words are accidents in the substance of concepts or ideas, and every word must be justified in some or other way and in some or other timeframe. Which is why I would never do something like beginning with definitions. And also, in relation to what were said earlier, axioms can not be defined. Again, that would be logicism, instead axioms can only be exposed. If you think that axioms can be defined then that is, necessarily, like hoping that your computer will begin to think when you give it inputs.

In the monadic layer of four dimensional simultaneity you will find the relation between each monad in the three-dimensional reflection of each monad within each monad. In the personal layer of the most emergent existence you will find each person as such a reflection in each of the others ("each" as confined to limited social spheres), but since the surface of these reflections are far from like mirrors then time and matter will serve each person as a dialectical method for approaching the essence of one another. In pure thought every thought is contained in every other, and here we can use proportion rules and intensities to calculate their summation in any moment, the intensity of self-awareness is a reflection of how many thoughts are contained in the one one has at a given moment, or rather, how intensely they imply one another, that time goes faster at old age is nothing but a consequence of this. Enlightenment is the dissociation with the aforementioned relation itself between the thoughts, that is, in finding in the thought an absence which were always before a presence.