Reciprocality

@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.

1. Spontaneity of composites (ideas), 2. Immanence of indivisibles (senses) and 3. concepts from non-contradiction form the three kinds of elements in the set of the axiom of foundation. The two first in conjunction form the geometric indivisibles under the necessary conditions of time, space and memory (effortless judgement of spatial awareness (non-opposition(intention) / impenetrability(extension))), while geometry in the abstract is formed first under formalisation whereby the indivisible of composite ideas is cut out of their reference frame, constituting dimensionality. (inside/outside, here/there, over/under) And when represented in time as opposed to space units vs metrics through practice of counting. The two former (1, 2) are substances onto their own, while only the former can change form and be applied as predicate/condition, and only the latter can fail as condition for true statements (the former can not even attempt such a task). That the idea can never fail as a condition is not a curious proposition, for when it comes to judgements it is never the condition which is under doubt, for all the rest rests instead on it, such that something out there may or may not be a lamp under the condition of our idea of lamps. While a concept on the other hand, can fail at being the condition for a positive conclusion, since positive conclusions could never have been reached without concepts, such that the concept of a `pattern` could fail as condition for the conclusion of an entropic state or the concept of `inductive` could fail as condition for the conclusion in an arithmetic operation. Logic in other words must allow the major premise itself to fail the minor one, as much as the other way around, while judgements themselves could never fail, and renders invariably the minor under them, and when the judgement is said to be false it is actually the judged instead which is false. Or simply: there are no true narratives, only narrated things. When concepts of reason are made we use ideas (spontaneously derived from personal or social experiences, IDEAS, or forcibly abstracted coincident IMAGES) not as predicates but as subjects, and render them under conditions of one another, just like concepts themselves, though the concepts made from ideas are impossibly positive conclusions, and only ever negative ones. It would be impossible for a concept made from ideas to be positive, since no concept of reason could ever affirm or point to anything in the world, instead concepts of reason are made from the contradictions which arises when nothing but ideas are put to use, and affirm instead the world negatively through those ideas. If sails as mere ideas were put to use for the thinking of the relative motion of boats then surely some may find themselves happily ignorant of sea travel, while they who find insufficiencies on part of such imagery under the need for the food only the sea could provide them would put the sail itself under scrutiny and condition it under the idea of winds and find therefrom that the area of the canvas is proportional to the speed of the vessel. That the universal cognition of non-contradiction takes the form of insufficiencies more so than denials/negations when put to use between ideas shows us only that our mind are so well trained to subtleties of social language that it has imagined blindly away the universal contained in the particular.

All I just said ^ is the cosmological version of the ontological first statement in the thread "there will always be something". Neither our world (cosmological) nor any possible world (ontological) are contingent unless they are intended, the latter is necessary through either 1. direct experience (suddenly in my case) or logically (by reference to experiences as negating the logical condition of a pure absence/nothingness). But is it as necessary that if the world were contingent it should be intended, as it is contingent if it were intended? Can we argue that our world is itself necessary? Can we extend the ontological argument into the cosmological? We really have no other alternative than god vs necessity in relation to its peculiarity/identity, so which is it? Everything Im saying here sounds fancy and philosophical, but it really isn't, it desire is as simplistic as what humans have been doing for hundred of thousands of years, it only is in addition self aware of where it derives its god-concept. It does not treat god as a question until it knows what it wishes to ask through it, it does not ask it until it knows why. It leaves nothing open except for whether there is intention and therefrom the possibility of higher purpose to our existence.

Only in the intellect of god could this particular world of ours be other than necessary, which if you are familiar with scepticism makes their philosophy rather meagre. If the skeptic denies the necessity of our world he must accept god, and if he denies god he must accept the worlds necessary existence. If by world we speak the globe then randomness must be introduced as a rejected ontological concept, while if we speak of the universe in its initial beginning no randomness becomes relevant. The reason our world is necessary if there is no god is that the opposed concept to its necessity is its possibility, but since its possibility is a concept that is actually contingent on its already given existence, and this concept is created out of the human affinity for negation, and the human affinity for negation is contingent on the thing to be negated, as logic could never be the foundation for itself, except for in the mind of god where everything becomes possible, therefore is the world necessary in its absence. The much better version: The concept of the worlds possibility is an insufficient condition for the world except for in the mind of god, and so since if the world is not possible it becomes necessary so therefore is it necessary in the absence of the god on whose power only it could be contingent.

@Carl-RichardDo you think I write to express my authenticity? If we employ Occhams razor for clarity's sake it would be more correct to say that what is written is authentic and that I value not the expressing of it but the meaning of it. I value the meaning of what I think so much that it is better if few understands it than if nobody does by producing 100 statements each separated by periods like @cetus suggested (and hope therewith that someone intuits their connections), if I could write it as concisely as possible I would love to, it continues to be one of my highest aspirations to find ways to be more readable without sacrificing meaning, it is possible that I am naturally shit poor at it, I don't know. Language is mostly the ability to point to shared experiences, as soon as we go beyond experiences that are shared, which is the realm I operate in most of the time, I will necessarily struggle to point to it. Everything I write in forums I obsessively check for possible ways it can be misinterpreted and cut up my sentences according to the need arising from there, the way I check for possible misinterpretations is that I imagine what the kinds of people who come to the relevant forum may presuppose in their own thinking, I don't know for instance if this additional information will function as an example for the general rule I outlined or if it will confuse you, this is a constant struggle, but it is an inherent problem with such things as forums, where we communicate not with individual people that we know personally, but with possibility distributions of perspectives.

@cetus I see what you say, my thoughts are very connected to one another, which makes me scream in agony imagining putting periods between them!

@Osaid And these unfortunate fabrications coincides with our traditions of especially literature and cinema, where protagonists are so often themselves the focus, even though in immediate experience as you call it the inverse is true, so as consequence of (though really symbiosis with) this: people imagine themselves as a character, or an ego, an individual in opposition and comparison to other individuals, while they actually are the whole thing. I think that pointing is definitely one of the methods, especially as we use it on ourself reminding us that the substance of reality is out there, in this way it may be that actual scientists and researchers see something most people don't, but I think it is more effective to show others that the one who is pointing is not actually in opposition/contradiction to anything (not an anti-fascist or anti meat-eater etc), but instead an intelligence that changes shape according to what its environment asks of it. And thank you for the compliment, hurray!

What is curious about this phenomena is that there are many different people who would be able to fill this need for us, suggesting that it may be possible to deconstruct the need abstractly. For if we needed to be held by a particular person it would be more sensible if we could deconstruct the need only materially, by being held by someone else than that particular one, given that this actually works. This need to be held is an ego-centric need, though not therefore something we should deconstruct, even if possible, but that it needs to be US who is held and that whoever holds us is a pure variable shows that whoever would hold us is in a sense a projection of our mind, thus abstract.

Acquired wisdom gives content to natural form, but is there possibly such a thing as natural wisdom? Would it be the re-instantiation of the truly neutral? Or perhaps giving in for primal urges? A neutrality conditioned on acquired and learned behaviour is no neutrality at all, but a self-denial, a denial of denial, a pure suspicion in itself, to not appear in any known light however, to not contain also the light of our appearance presupposes that there already is no self to deny. Natural wisdom would be looking always forward and applying the past as the means towards it, and to not sacrifice the fluidity of the unknown for comfort, å hegne om seg selv.

If it were unclear I can abstract from the above the rule that if followed: If you were to maintain that thoughts have us fooled it would be like saying that humans are mischievous, or that babies are criers, or that laptops are warm, but since the opposite of all these statements is also true, since the abstract categories of "humans, laptops and babies" are very broad it would instead be wise to find the actual conditions for warm laptops, crying babies and mischievous behaviour, don't u think? I think yes, and so it is with thoughts, there are certain conditions under which thoughts fools us, and there are the absence of these conditions.

When you perceive a mountain there is no mountain there, when you perceive clouds there are no "real" cloud. You are the way in which what you look at is perceived as an idea, and these ideas were never themselves false nor correct, they are the language by which you orient yourself in your surroundings. Have you ever experienced things in the absence of the idea you normally think when you experience them? This experience is trying to tell you that you are living in a deluded world, that you have lost all connection to reality itself, that is certainly what is tells me, I think it is universally true for at some or other layer we are convinced that our ideas are of the real world itself, isn't it amazing how effortlessly we believe that our ideas are true of the world itself? You can become directly conscious of it when you turn the world into your idea by looking around in the room, have you ever experienced this, if so how were this experience like?

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.