Reciprocality

Every thought is itself simple, and every thought is immanent truth, and every thought is indivisible and every thought is self-subsistent and every thought is substance and every thought is axiomatic. Their connection among one another are almost identical to the connection of monads in simultaneity, and so too are the whole human species with each of its little characters identical to either of these. I can not fail to be correct, the connection between monads is an illusion, the connection between thoughts is an illusion and the connection between people is an illusion. Instead the whole is contained in the part. Time is when all I just said becomes weird, for in the crystalisation and chaotic process of causation or in other words in the diminution of the mode of substance the relation between things changes yet the things themselves remains the same. And the character this identity vs divergence duality takes is very different between the three layers of reality.

That circles have 360 degrees is not an axiom, nor is it an axiom that two lines that cross one another form four angles, if axioms were statements concerning the possibility of truth then reality were created out of logic. Instead "circles" are axioms, their decomposition in our analysis of their nature follows logically and causally from their nature, the form of logic is non-contradiction the form of causation is synthetic impenetrability and the form of geometry is analytic impenetrability. The homogenous of any heterogeneous is the axiomatic structure of reality, your statements concerning the possibility of truth takes the intellectual place of the homogenous when you fail to conceive of its real character. Axioms concerning truth can not be other than concepts the rejection of the plurality of which are inconsistent with one another. Axioms that does not concern truth are simply imaginings the inconsistency in the plurality of the rejection of which is creative. You simply can not prove the relations between your thoughts as you think them, this is to ask of your consciousness that it splits into two and that you become a hundred fold more than your already are. Instead axioms are perpetual productions of the ground for consistency, axioms are immanent self-subsistent truths. Axioms are the creation of metrics. They are unbelievable, that is, they can not be believed in, again, they are immanent truths, you don't get to believe by means of the circle that it has 360 degrees, instead 360 degrees is an additional axiom imposed on the circle from inductive or exhaustive "proofs", the imposition is a creation of belief systems through conjunction. And then the mathematicians will do what is absolutely unheard of, they will literally define the circle by means of their conjunction of choice, and will have done what is nothing more than circular reasoning. Axioms concerning truth are nothing except those that never contradict one another, for except for immanent truth there is only logical truth. Contradictions among these axioms have only one possible cause, and that is in failure of completing the set of them all. Godels incompleteness theorem takes axioms as statements, and fails entirely the concept of completeness and the concept of axioms. Reality is a synthesis of the complete set of axioms with itself, it does not treat the axioms as a decomposition, but instead as a simultaneous unity, our logic will never suffice through decomposition of the synthesis of reality the self-subsistence of each axiom the coherence of reality, not because the coherence does not follow from the axioms, but because we are infinitely more limited than to ever exhaust them all. Again, to believe that axioms are statements is to say that regarding the things your first begun with in your reasoning you didn't actually begin with them at all, already here we see that your definition of an axiom is not only inconsistent, but itself an inconsistent axiom under your own definition of axiom. 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. The self-subsistence of substance is both something that is a predicate of nothing and also has no predicates, and this is what axioms are when you do not viciously apply them in a theorem.

@Moksha True!

Dignity is a natural aesthetic, it is a universal ideal, ego happens first when the proclivity for realising a dignified state is not emphasised, or even worse, recognised in others and not conceived to be universal. Dignity is not based upon competition, and there is no ego except for in opposition to others. To begin to live life without dialectically separating oneself from others is to create a self-identity with only intrinsic meaning and in want of instrumental meaning. A dignified self-identity is to intrinsic ends in themselves what an egoic self-identity is to instrumental means for what seems to amount to power. A self identity then built not from narratives made in separation from others is possible, but what corresponds to it materially? What would be examples of ends in themselves except for attempts at bringing life to ideals, to visions of beauty?

I absolutely love this man, and he is absolutely unhinged. To U. G enlightenment is simply the absence of myth, and to U. G everything which is not immediate is myth. If on the other hand you wish to conceive this man as unenlightened then you have to produce some consistent theory of how on earth he can say all the things he says, and do nothing in his life except saying it while remaining in the same category of people as materialistic realists, yet reject everything they say. It becomes obvious that to U. G everything which is given immediately to him is the only possible truth, and that silence is the closest thing we come to this immediacy once it is already seen, however, he takes the reverse position regarding those who have yet to grasp it, and says about these people that their meditative efforts are acts of futility. He has a lot of extreme positions on everything from what you should eat to why you want to have sex, he is a true original without being unaware of the norms, this alone deserves praise, but there is also a lot of helpful insights to acquire from listening to him, not to speak about hysterical laughs. edit: His teachings amounts to a rejection of thoughts as anything else than predicates, and that everything in reality becomes a perception through these predicates, and that the subject or substrate of reality, which is nothing but our "nature" is taken away from us during assimilation into culture. As a direct consequence of this epistemic perspective has he concluded that children are some or other form of what I believe he thinks are, simply put: "superior beings".

@Manny Sorry to hear it, if you love her then it may be a good idea to either give her some space or to be desperate and showing your desperation, both have their proper contexts. But if you don't truly love her, and have simply grown so comfortable with having her around that you would be insecure or uncomfortable in her absence then your breakup is a blessing.

It is a state different from any other state, it is not a person, it is precisely the opposite of an "I", it can not be owned. There will always be enlightenment, it wont go away from reality, yet it takes different character between different people, or should I say "beings". Yet it is non of the above, it is ineffable. Nobody has authority on it, yet a culture of seekers needs, at their own pace, authority-figures of it.

It is absurd to judge people based on either what they didn't know when they acted or what one can not within reason expect them to acquire of knowledge in some situation dependent again on what they already knew leading up to it. Such judgements amounts to inconsistencies. Since peoples knowledge varies enormously it is absurd then to jail different people equally long for identical crimes based on rehabilitation alone, instead the argument for use of this kind of governmental force must revolve around the jail time as a means not for the criminal itself but instead for the safety etc of the overall society. Yet to my awareness, which to be honest is lacking a lot on this topic, more developed countries like those in northern Europe purport to be first and foremost jailing people for their "own good" yet fail to take into account the knowledge of the ones who committed the crimes in deciding the jail time for them, I have no clear data to back this up, I hate looking for something I may not find, but for arguments sake - engage me in theory, would it not be weird if the more developed countries had little to no care for this kind of subjective difference between criminals? And on a more important note, have you recognised in yourself how often you judge people for what they did when they simply did not know any better? This is a reoccurring theme in my life, and it simply happens because I myself do not know what others did not know, some irony huh?

Consider that this moment right now were seen in gods eyes, and how ridiculous, void of context, meaningless and silly it would look? We give life all the context and baggage this moment needs not to be absolutely worthless, it could be said that the moment is a means for the context we give it, that the purpose of substance is self-realisation. That the purpose of subjects are their predicates. Yet it is when the subjects themselves are seen that the most amount of worth is made possible, through deliberate creations that approaches ideals by subordinating the substance to our self. And so it is that in art we have find meaning.

The ego is a sick fuck, it will make a narrative out of everything, its most flawless conceptual systems becomes its possessions and is now thought as "its". Everything will in some way or another become about it. It is obvious once you see it, how wondrous it must be not to. Or let us entertain the obvious elephant in the room, perhaps it is only my own ego I speak of, perhaps others ego IS infinite god? And it is I who is in want of becoming god?

@Jehovah increases Something that can do whatever it wants to or be anything it wants to would then also be a substance, and when it comes to our senses, in so far as they distributes over the whole of mankind, as all evidence suggests, would then be a substrate. I do not know if you implied that you are a physicist or if you just were playing around. It would luckily matter very little either way, in relation to our current investigations.

I were always able to fit in, but what I did not know then that I do know today is that I were also always able to not to, and so what has happened during all these years when though I integrated their stories and opinions of me to become similar to them I were only fooling myself while when they underwent the same process they were fooled by others. They are today living under the veil of their childhood, they repeat ten times the patterns they are aware of while I repeat a tenth of the patterns I am aware of. Dissimulation has me in extreme control. Edit: this is obviously a story, and far from a literal statistical truth, yet it is far more true than it is false.

When they say "mememememe" I say "thisthisthisthisthisthis" If I began to write about myself I would feel terribly ill, but it is obvious that since what humans wants are stories by the bed so they can sleep well during the night I should give some wriggle room for myself to reacquire their methods.

Most people on this forum has me confounded, all they talk about is themselves, or is said in implication towards something about themselves, yet they purport that it is not there. How so many people are able to do this identical thing and fail to notice how ridiculous it is, not to speak about how obvious it is that they are only doing it because other people are too, and how even more ridiculous that is, would have me in tears of laughter if it weren't for the insight that if I were them I would do the same thing and that in so far as they do not harm anyone there is no good reason to separate myself from them, they will at some time or another be at peace with the limitations of their ego, they have come way too far not to.

When you think too much every concrete instantiation of reality becomes an element in a conceptual system, and you no longer see the wonder of life under these conditions, and what is worse, time begins to tick forwards faster. This recognition is more than anything else what has made me wary of studying science, for I would then begin to live life faster through constant predication of the data of the senses. That being filled up with a million fantasies from scientific textbooks is the standard for "educated men" when all it does is make your intelectual matabolism run faster and your dying day closer, is revolting. An ethic/utility concern must soon be discovered in scientific communities where questions concerning not only what information is superior to another but also whether the information is superior to its own absence in the human who thinks it.

@Jehovah increases Hmm, could it be that when you refer to "infinity" you are referring to the substrate or substance of your experience? We define a substance as that which is not a predicate (or description in more layman terms) for anything else, and under this definition colors, sounds, touch etc would be, so far as they are not reduced to descriptions of cars, lamps, humans, bodies be infinity, (never themselves to obsolve, die crumble, be negated)? Or is it that consciousness is the predicate of nothing else and through this becomes non-dual and is what infinity is? Or perhaps both are true simultaneously? That 1. everything in experience and 2. the unity of it all (consciousness) describes/predicates nothing other than what it already is, and is substance/infinite properly so called?

@Kuba Powiertowski I think this is the biggest philosophical question, so I applaud you for having discovered it. It is the "meta" question of philosophy. We can only fail in describing the already given, and our only method is 1. imposing on it (and through it) stories and myths and 2. deriving theories on it from what it already is through logic. So why do we continue doing it despite necessarily failing? Despite never being able to draw our own hand itself? In my case I have gone into substance theory as a last bastion of hope towards depictions of reality, but even here it would be an insoluble question to ask what the purpose in these theories really are, even if I were to succeed in making reality necessary through arguments regarding its many substances. "negation is only possible in our limited minds, there are unlimited things, therefore something as opposed to nothing is an absolute necessity" " I also don't think this human experience should be taken as a total prison you must escape as soon as possible" For sure, if we are too quick in our movement towards self-absolution it may be an escapism from the harshness in the concrete problems of our lives. Ill reflect on the rest of your comment, and when it comes to comparing me to Watts I certainly have a steep curve ahead of me to live up to that standard so far as rhetorics are concerned, for he must have been unparalleled in that area.

Every time I judge someone, regarding whatever it may be, I do it because I recognise in them what were already an affinity of my own. That part of us which were born out of rejection of our own nature is simply prolonging its own existence through judgement, our ego creates a story of being separate from our nature, it makes little difference in the long run whether the object of judgement is externalised or internalised, it is all the human need for narrative, to not be enough. We lose the ability to see the beauty of absolutely everything around us in proportion to the intensity of these narratives.

@Jehovah increases So right now all you see around you can not be better described than by the usage of the concept infinity? Yet by writing on the forum right now you are in constant clash against your finite self? Please tell me if somehow this is wrong.

Negation is the only "nothing" and therefore "death" that has meaning for the intellect, and so far as the ego-self is concerned this "death" is pure imagination. Yet substance or substrate is infinite, indivisible, absolute, it remains while we no longer express it. Just like how you see colors when you open your eyes and I see non when I have mine closed, and so too is the inverse true. God is substance, and according to god we are mere modes of "him", I thought that this were your (actualized forum) insights. When we become aware that we as limited self-identities are finite we become in touch with our "infinity", and then fail miserably in holding onto the realisation.

@Jehovah increases I am a bit disturbed by how you could confuse what I said for the death of infinity when I try my best explicating the opposite, and I have spent adequate time on this forum to not think this is by intent. Your particular limited self, this is what absolves, whether through the absolution of its body or through psychodelics, not infinity itself.

@michaelcycle00 What time if there's none? It's an illusion after all. Time is finite and illusory construct in the absolution of self-identity, yet it becomes reality through the limitation of self-identity. Our consciousness is already infinitely forward and infinitely backward in "time". If the "our" in this statement were our identity then this would be impossible because the identity is created finitely, this is the nature of duality, and in the finite there is always singular forwards time. If the "our" in this statement referred to the god-self then neither infinity nor time would function as meaningful predicates in relation to it. No beginning and therefore no end which nullifies time. "How do you know we're not on the nth chance already instead of the first? " "We could have one chance, two, 8 billion... no difference." This presupposes a soul, which is created out of speculative logic, instead "we" are always under change, and can experience nothing except for in relation to the place we come from and the unknown place we move towards. On the other hand, if you referred to the god-self in your statement above as "we" then it would be contradictory to say that it could have one chance and also be infinite in expression. "What is there to lose anyway?" The unknowability of things does not imply the impossibility of things, your whole life function as evidence of this statement, whether or not you believe your life is a mere memory or were actually lived. Therefore the unknowability of the things of the future does not imply that things are impossible in the future, all evidence suggest that there will unfold one and that the future becoming of us have something to lose, we can lose our own becoming, the crystallisation of potentiality, that is what we have to lose. And this is the mode of substance that you did not ask any question concerning the meaning of before you responded.

Many thinks that character is an egoic construct, yet that can not be so for nobody has one of their own, and have instead only the character of others. As a consequence of this ^ understanding can you theorise that it takes real struggle as opposed to creativity to develop character in the world, again, it does not come from within, but is instead projected onto you from without. The means by which people project onto you the character they find in you is identical with the means by which they find patterns in things, and so if you never had to struggle in your life this will take an identical nature in you as it does in others, just like how the seed for two trees will be identical for the one who holds them in their hands yet the trees themselves bifurcate into entirely different shapes. What actually happens is that people who never had to struggle try to synthesise the behaviour of other people into an ideation they call "themselves" and can live half their life unaware of how their true character in not yet existent. True struggle is absent except for in the trenches, do you think soldiers are self-conscious?

If the stuff I have written on this forum the last week were read by an advanced humanoid civilisation from hundred thousand years in the future not only would what I said be obvious (were they to interpret it in the context of the meaning of words anno 2023) but it would not matter to them. The reason it can be complex or impenetrable to you yet obvious for others is, as unintuitive as it would seem, that thoughts are inherently simple. Every thought is the metric for the next one, just like how in the four dimensional simultaneity every monad is a reflection of every other, and so when I think any one of my concepts the rest of my conceptual frame follows, only when we are forced to reconcile contradictions will what is simple become one step less so. The inherent simplicity of conceptual thoughts is contained in how they are without exceptions built from non-contradiction, except for in intuitive geometry, where they are built from non-opposition or impenetrability. The non-opposition of the world of causality, or simply impenetrability, in the fifth dimension of time is synthetic logic, it goes without exception from conclusion to conclusion (simultaneity to simultaneity) without regard for premises and decomposition, the coherence of this world is built through our subconscious mind (or whatever the fuck the universe "is" itself) and the opposite method of world building, found only in the conscious mind, is deductive logic (the only conscious logic), that is, the principle of non-contradiction.

@r0ckyreed True, from the relative perspective death is imaginary, in the "absolute" perspective however death would be an absence of a particular mode/composition of substance. Though it will cease to mean what we mean by death, that is, the descriptive definition of death in our culture. Edit: and to be sure, it were the latter meaning of death I referred to in the post.