Reciprocality

So when I say dignity, and do nothing more than refer to a generalisation of an experience, and speak of nothing more or less than the possibility of experiences, you confuse the thing I am point towards for your own crippled notions of a meaning of the word. You have literally created out of logic the meaning of something that has no foundation in direct experience, and you think you are so clever by refusing dualities in the very same motion as you create those that don't even exist, by imagining that ideas are in conceptual opposition to one another, when instead they are in disjunctive opposition in mere judgement. That is, regarding a mere something (variable), it is one of an uncountable array of ideas, the rejection of each singular element of which is in no way an affirmation of any of the others, until you have exhausted them all, to say that dignity is dual to indignity is to say that when we don't want shit thrown at us we go through logical steps and reject every single ideas (headphones, lamps, creativity, forrest, Jupiter etc....) until only dignity remains and becomes consistent. If for instance you wanted to be able to criticise orange/green SD stages from above it wont help you to understand their methods from beneath. The duality dignity/indignity is created out of the logic we involve ourself in during and after the experience, the affinity for the experience itself however is not, even though also this affinity is identified through distinctions and an additional layer of logic.

@Moksha The distinctions in terms of which we are different through the intellect of our minds are made from logic, and are not the ideas themselves (only concepts and systems), which is why so many of you confuse solipsism for mysticism.

Other humans are more different to us than animals are, not in the form through which their intellect creates distinctions, but in the content of the distinctions themselves. To fail to see this is to fail to some or other extent a theory of mind, as it is called when instead of conceiving that others think the thought we do they think entirely their own thoughts, even when language makes it appear otherwise. Failure of doing this is analogous to eating shit, under their common expression of, yes you guessed it, the absence of dignity. To think that dignity comes from the intellect is to believe that the world is created out of logic.

@Kuba Powiertowski Yep, we judge others and thereby create ourself all the time, and then what this process amounts to is actual judgement of ourself, for we have then created rules for who we should be. This is as you implied necessary for human living, no amount of enlightened sorcery will make your organism, whatever is the ground for your being, become a new one. And so this deed will be carried until your last day. But by defining ourself not from how we are opposed to other people but by something of intrinsic worth, by addition instead of division, and treat that in us which has material towards that end as and end in itself, and start to notice the effortless perfection and beauty of things then there will be less and less inclination for judgement. "Life without this burden is a flight into the sky." Yes, but instead of a flight from the burden we find something to replace it with more and more for every day going by, then the sky wont have to consume us completely.

So you sit there with your screen like a confused ape looking algorithmically for signs of whether I am trying to fool you of my enlightenment, for it is the only method the ego has. You need others to guide you because this shit is way to much for yourself to handle, and so you create for yourself a crutch you may never be able to throw away. Now I refuse to use your narratives and impose on my direct experience the ideas of "infinity" "god" and "absolute", when what is actually going on is either that I cry from how indescribable, ineffable, absurd, extreme, peaceful reality becomes through me, but reality itself is non of these descriptions, it refuses to be described except for in our thinking mind. The pitfall I have identified in most of your cases is that you believe there is somehow a "right" way to describe the indescribable.

You probably even thought that this were a critique of the forum, yet it weren't, for what I describe is the hopelessness itself of having lived for a lifetime in the world of constant need for narrative, story and identity to even function. It has to be discovered that you have imposed that need for being someone onto yourself, and that you can let it go. In some weird way it has to be spontaneously let go of. When you are a seeker of truth and oneness the only possible way to remain stuck as a seeker of truth and oneness is to differentiate between enlightened people and common folk. The last barricade your self identity has imposed on you to feel in control.

The perpetuity of a state of beauty, nature, oneness, the absolute, god or enlightenment is ridiculous illusion. That you expect anyone to show you that they are awake is a profanity, one of which only the need for narrative could be responsible, instead your mission is to find back to what you really are without expecting to remain you when you become it. All that this forum is about is the method of finding back to what we are through judgement of what we became, and so you describe, discern, predicate, differentiate between one another, towards the creation of an even more separated self, all in the name of becoming one.

There is a tendency to think that when you have been stuck in a shell for a long time and finally freed yourself from it that other people are stuck in it too. But they are instead stuck in something very different, spirituality is confusing this difference for a commonality. If you pay attention to people in actual physical interactions after having let go of parts of your ego/self you can actually begin to notice that they are rather different than you thought they were, that by implication you had judged and misunderstood them all this time because all you had at your disposal were a shell of yourself. I wont go into my own trap and say that you will all experience this phenomena if you pay attention to others after such ego absolutions, because it wouldn't be a trap and I would be correct, so the question is how much will you try to pay attention to others instead of using preconceived models for the purpose of literally not having to think.

@Moksha You are creating a duality between "limited conceptual capacity of the mind" and "failure to think logically". You are creating the same problem that Leo creates when he thinks that there are paradoxes, I would actually bet that if you gave me sufficient time I would be able to convince you that the trap you both fall in is identical and that I could show you why you create it and that you can solve it. You create a duality between yourself and your "capacity".

@Moksha Yes, life could become terrible if all we did were logic, for instance, if I were to think the way I do the first three hours in the morning every hour of my life I would need a psychedelic trip/day long meditation every other day. I think logic is not only a limitation the absolute places on itself but a limitation it needs to place on itself, and that its absoluteness does not hinge on whether or not it could choose not to place logic on itself. To look deeper than logic is to fail to think logically, and this failure is non-propostional truth, an absolutely amazing experience if you will call it that, just completely indescribable, or so it is in my case. When you fail to conclude that 20x20 is 400 you actually do not fail logic, because whatever you thought were simply guaranteed from your premises, the problem were instead in your clarity of the premises themselves. ^I think this last phrase would clear up a lot of misunderstandings earlier in the thread, and since it is a very esoteric philosophy of logic, though irrefutable, can be important to pay close attention to, and if you have questions to it I will try to help.

@Moksha Logic is made out of the absolute, so according to logic there is no absolute, just like how according to an atheist there is no god.

@Moksha Nothing I said implies otherwise, and let me do you one better: Reality is beyond logic. Reality is already the absolute.

Implications to all this, which may become dry as hell but worthy of mentioning is that inference rules and things of this nature are all extra-logical, that is, that the literal field of logic is an investigation into something that is not logic by means of logic. Logic becomes not principles of identity and non-contradictions but principles becomes immanence of identity and non-contradiction through the self-replicating nature of axioms and their self-subsistence in thought. : ) it is beautiful stuff, you have no idea the highs I get from these insights, I thought Actualized.org were all about insight but as soon as it involves anything resembling an explication of the methods of insight, I get met with a wall of "logic bad", well I have news for you, no amount of storytelling will make it true that you become a mystic by rejecting how you think.

@Hojo I hear you, you ego deathed and then you ego revived, and then your ego creates a narrative out of the experience to feel like it makes sense, and then you use other people such as on this forum as means for it to appear to make more sense while you are still an ego and it no longer is dead. Or you tell me?

@Moksha You are equivocating "anything" with these: "totality", "the already given substratum" or "the composition of the senses". That logic fails to reproduce these three from its limited means in our limited intellect does not mean that it is incapable of anything. You simply don't understand the problems that philosophy tries to answer. And can therefore not know where mysticism becomes necessary, and what it actually is in opposition to what it is not, such to speak fluently about it with others. Edit: on the other hand, your mystical insights themselves may be golden. And I am sure I could learn something here.

"Up" and "down" do not exist in the universe, it exist in concept, it is actually you who says otherwise when you insist on the reality to which your notion of "paradox" is supposed to correspond. You expect of logic to give you something more than what were already given in your premises, this is literally logicism. You probably even think that axioms are beliefs or propositions, but also this is false, axioms are the nature of indivisibles, they are self-subsistent, they are the condition for propositions or beliefs, this is what Godel actually discovered, axioms are immanent knowlegde, axioms are immanent truths. Axioms are the creation of the metric itself, and only under the metric can we find consistency and inconsistency.

@Vibroverse @Leo Gura All you are saying amount to this: "We wish to maintain the integrity of discrete numbers/integers, 3 is an integer and so is 10, through the act of dividing the latter with the former we have now reached a continuous variable (3.333..) and fail to maintain the integrity we sought to" and then "we failed our mission, it must be the fault of the conclusion itself" The problem is that the concept of discreetness and division are two sets the subsets of which are antithetical to one another, and then that you wished it weren't so by "maintaining the integrity" in the first place. What you end up with is that you must begin with at least two axioms that as sets never contain subsets that contradict one another, and this you do in a way I could teach an 8 year old, you bring forth the nature of dualities and do not allow them to describe anything in empirical experience as though they were borrowed from experience the way ideas like "mountain" are.

@Moksha It is the other way around, the idea of a sunset is created out of experience somehow being fixated on it from no intention of our own, it is in approximation to the ideal of things that experience is abstracted into imagery and when socialised: language and then becomes what we call "ideas". Though I don't wish to be absolutistic in my approach to philosophy it would be hypocritical of me to feign uncertainty on this matter, certainty is in fact a condition under which philosophical questions are made, precisely because there are uncertain things. I wont engage the contradictions that occur if I were to reverse the order of ideals and ideas as you attempt, and show in addition how the result is a fake mysticism (which in no sense implies that you would be fake in your mysticism), unless asked directly, such that the questioner actually feel required from inner conscience to engage the logic. "This is a fruitful discussion, because it illustrates the conceptual limitations of philosophy." Concepts are limited only so far as they fail to produce the material ground itself for their existence, this were never the task of philosophy, and for those sorry fellers or "brilliant philosophers" as you call them to whom it were made into a task, of which there are disturbingly many, a confusion of their own acquisition of concepts were always present.

Now enough from me, now ill go away and do some more theorising and logicising, like this particular character enjoys doing, its gonna do a lot of thinking, but what about? Not itself.

And what about how much you obsess over whether others are carrying the deed you do not dare to carry yourself? How much you strut around "checking" whether or not they fit a literal barometer of "god-like behaviour", how it all becomes a massive narrative? You are doing it all because you don't want to be natural, and now you are stuck because you have created an identity of already being one of those who are natural.

Have you ever considered that to be a guru you kind of have to be a master manipulator? To be a master salesman? Not out of ill-intent but to convince other that they are far more than a thought when all they do is think? Have you ever considered that by attempting to become like the guru, to become enlightenment-like, to have this or that set of characteristics you have, again, flipped it all on its head? That instead there is nothing wrong with how you carry yourself as you do already, that this is effortlessly taken care of either way, that instead what you actually look for is here already and that every word you have used to describe it just feeds into more ego. That instead, the ego can be appreciated on its own terms, and accepted as insufficient in "realms" beyond itself?

It is so tiering with all these stories, and they are made of smoke, which is why I refuse endlessly to think anything that isn't a theory on something that is way more interesting than me, I can not help being suspicious that many if not most of you think that the smoke of your personal existence can be put on fire, lit up, enlightened, but that is to have everything backwards. The smoke is there for a reason.

All thinking, all narrative, all I thought, think and rethink that I am becomes meaningless drivel once I notice that the clock is ticking, the literal light around me, the sounds around me becomes hundred times more interesting than who I want to tell anyone that I am.

There is seemingly no end to how conscious you will become when you understand that this is it.

If you hold your breath for a minute until it becomes terribly uncomfortable and then pinch yourself very hard it will be noticeably less painful than normally. Is it because during those last seconds before you just have to breath in again the pain receptors no longer have their typical purpose, that there would be no evolutionary advantage of feeling the same amounts of pain when another survival instinct kicks in? This may imply further that in our everyday life the pain receptors are activated, could they be deactivated? Would several survival instincts at once be a disadvantage for our focus, independently of the variable of our production of adrenaline?