Reciprocality

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.

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.