Reciprocality

I notice that sometimes I forget that others have too their own private sphere of thoughts also when they do not speak, and that I will never have access to this. This relates to the ideal of dignity, it developes it further, it is in want of dignity that we forget that other people are in this sense just like us. Yet it is egoic, curious? Perhaps if dignity is ever absent where the ego is present the inverse would be possible too?

This is when I get mystical on you.. The very, very weirdly beautiful thing about these homogenous substances of four dimensional simultaneity is that there is no medium between them except inside each of them, because otherwise there would be a real duality between medium and mediated, instead this medium is inside each substance and so is the rest of the universe. So how does it look like when time progresses inside each of them? And are we not hard pressed to argue that there must be an equal number of these substances in the beginning of the universe as there is now? In fact we can use the affirmation of the answer to the last question as a proof against the theory of non-simultaneity most physicists have their own ridiculous version of in their head from the "implications" of general relativity. The other difference between this and typical ideations of "Indras net" is that the "distance" between each of the substances in this theory is always different amongst one another.

Imagine that every time you double the radius of a circle you exhaust the outside of this circle until at last there is no outside of this circle, this would be possible only on a finite plane. Imagine now that you maintain an identical quantity of circumference throughout the imagining above on a separate scalar plane, imagine for instance a cartesian coordinate system on that separate plane on which the identical circumference of the circle is represented as a 0 dimensional dot. However big of a portion of the whole plane you took you would just be a point on the coordinate system, but how would the lines themselves of that coordinate system behave under various inputs from the size of the circle? This is a 2+1 dimensional representation of how the indeterminate simultaneity of the universe "behaves", not only doesn't 1 meter exist in the universe but it doesn't even model ANY of its continuums and is itself a discrete property distributed everywhere yet never to add onto itself in any direction. The set of "2 meters" is also distributed everywhere, but as implied above never in the same places as "1 meter", as is the set of "10 meters" distributed everywhere without being divisible into each meter. One triangle is indivisible into its circumference in an analogous way to how the metric and the units are inherently curved and stretched above. This is the simultaneity of the universe, this is the forth dimension, time is an additional dimension (5th) though nothing more than space and mutually opposed matter. When you move sufficiently far in ANY direction in the four dimensional manifold you will end up where you started, but there is far more direction in which to go than there would be in an equivalent three dimensional infinite space, the infinity i talk about here is like a circle not literal/additive. There actually is a perfect 1-dimensional direction from point a through b-c-d-e and then back to a in the simultaneity of our universe for the same reason every volume in this simultaneity contains discrete units and never continuous metrics.

Consider the starry heavens, the stars are representations of the past, but if we instead of visualising the presence of the appearance and tried to visualise the presence of what those appearances would look like if light traveled here immediately (and the slowed down again) we would have an insufficiently small outlook towards them. (there wouldn't be enough heaven for them all) This actually means that the 2 dimensional identity of 360 degrees are insufficient for a full rotation in proportion to the distance you ideate from the perspective of a determined subject and its object, and we are therefore in a four dimensional manifold, this manifold (so far as we wish to separate ourself from the mathematics of the universe, which even an enlightened monk would do if he wished to model in his mind how it behaves) must be in simultaneity, which means that time is the fifth dimension. The amazing consequence of my discovery is that you literally are the boundary of the universe, for you "repeat" indefinitely in its simultaneity. You don't actually repeat however, cus nothing can travel through the medium of simultaneity, it is only through the medium of time that the model represents the world itself, which itself bares certain ontological implications to dimensions beyond the fifth.

I am fine with having a word for failing to understand that logic is the creation itself of rules through maintaining two or more identities in a formal or even informal system. The real problem here is that there are no independent rules, and so the inconsistency of our thinking only exist when someone notices, and then it exists only for themselves during the noticing, and so far as I understand your teachings I am pretty sure you will agree to this statement, but then I can not fathom why you would consider this paradoxical in any other sense than as I mentioned above: it is unbelievable that we exists at all, for belief requires the creation of rules and we can never outbeliev ourself. No amount of logical conclusion could ever possibly make it absolutely astounding that the world is actual, non to mention possible, yet the world is astounding, through our failure of logic.

What what you just said actually means is this: "is it not weird that there is at all anything?" or "existence is unbelievable" And I am almost certain this will be misunderstood. Falsity is created out of truth, there is as you have repeated again and again: only truth. Falsity is an emergent layer of truth, it is in your language god playing with himself. The inconsistency of our thinking does exist, and it is not a paradox that we have a word for it, it is simply an additional layer of inconsistency to think that the first layer of inconsistency were a problem on the part of logic itself and not our own ability to think. Logic is nothing more than a re-instantiation of premises together in unity. Their unity creates the rule. When you wish to think a 1 you have already thought a duality, and you have for yourself now a 2. every other discrete number follows from this under its rule.

@hyruga Yes dignity is also a thought, and it becomes often a narrative we give ourself in opposition to others. Every genuine experience becomes encapsulated by our dual thinking process, and this is what we want to try to avoid. If someone threw shit at us on the street we would take a shower, you implied that it is only possible to want to take a shower if one feels an opposition towards those who threw the shit on us, I claim that dignity is (when it is not ruined by the ego and the intellect) this desire to take a shower and every analogous desire.

@Moksha It is a good question whether they absolutely exist, or rather, an important question. However, it is also a very absurd question when you realise that answers are conditioned on questions, and that the meaning of the "absolute" of the question is itself a duality that you have created, so far as it could be an answer to the question. If there is an absolute of ideals then this absolute must, due to the problem we discovered above, share a nature similar to those ideals (as not being a duality), and only be approached never to be reached.

In the simplest possible way: "this statement is false" purports to be a statement but fails the condition for statements. A statement is something x about y, if x is unthinkable without being a duality then y can not be the other half of that duality, for then you would state nothing at all. When you want to believe that it is paradoxical you have defined a statement as meaning a quack or a roar, which is typical of people who want to have personal and unquestioned power over words. Edit: But under your own definitions, when statements are quacks and roars they fail to attempt at being logical. And that which fails at trying to be logical is not even contradictory, and certainly not paradoxical.

@Moksha That dignity needs the possibility to feel indignant is actually your projection and your limiting belief, you have confused something that is not a concept for a duality. Ideals are an entirely different nature than concepts, there can not be concept all the way down. It would be absurd to say that the beauty of a sunset is duality, instead the sunset is approaching a non-dual ideal, this ideal is itself unthinkable yet we have an affinity for experiencing when concrete things approaches it. This holds true for the ideal of dignity, in our intellectual minds dignity becomes dual to whatever takes it away, and our intellectual minds create then an indignant state, but it is you and not me who wished to perpetuate the intellect. This is literally the debate between the two big ones, you have heard both their names, Aristotle and Plato.

Every duality collapses because they are self-subsistent, their meaning is never found in the things they refer to, there is nothing "explicit" in the world nor is there something "implicit" in the world, instead the world becomes explicit here and implicit here through the insistence on self-identity. The same is true for every concept, that is, every duality. This is the mechanism of existence discovering itself through us, its natural inclination is to be in opposition with itself, existence does not want to be alone and the recurrence of our ego is the consequence. We are working against our lonely existence. Everything in between is a narrative.

@Leo Gura Okay okay Ive thought about what you said and it makes sense, the substratum is created from god and imposed on us and we by being imposed by it developed the intellect required to first think we understood the substratum itself when all we understood were our own interpretation of it and then that interpretation became literally REAL for us, and then we live in the delusion that we are not ALSO the one who imposed the substratum on ourself. The only assumption I have to make is that it is possible for one thing to preserve its limited and also unlimited identity at one and the same time. The semantics of the situation is a bit more problematic than just assuming, accepting or knowing that I am god, because it would still be absurd to use the concept of intellect and the concept of imagination beyond the limited places they were found, if I were god these words would be insufficient for the reality I created. And also, I never disagreed that the substrate itself weren't mind, and it weren't implied either, there is undeniably a totality in our experience, and it is certainly not physical.

@Leo Gura For sure, the intellect imagines the coherence of everything, it imagines the essence of everything, it even imagines the contradictions of everything, and we imagine that we are that intellect and then we imagine that the intellect did not do any of those things but that instead all those things were true about the world itself and true independently of us. But nothing would be given as a subject, substratum or substance for these imaginings if it weren't beyond the intellect which produced these imaginings, the intellect requires material, this is certainly contained throughout your teachings not least of which in your interpretation of Godels theorems where you can not for instance reduce maths to logic, so why would you then suddenly turn around and insist that the intellect imagines ALSO the substratum itself such as the senses?

If you want to learn anything it is important to give yourself time to solve complex and really hard problems, your mind will reject every concept it does not know the need for, its meaning is simply born out of its necessity, even if you know of its word the "it" will not yet exist in your mind until it will literally be contradictory to apply every other concept to an identical situation. That this is so is predictable by something so simple as that after having watched a movie you will be hard pressed to visualise the sets of the shootings the way you visualise rooms you have actually been in, your mind will almost without exceptions remember only what it has in some or another way solved. This is an opposite way of using your head to when you listen to a story or a narrative (as is the mind´s prima operandi), and especially true of when you read non-fiction, where images are formed like monograms that merely represent sufficient information to put you on a next and irreversible step. The reason I felt the urge to say all this is that I notice a lot of what I can only infer as shallow thinking in this sub-section of the forum, mystical or spiritual priorities are ridiculous excuses for it.

I would not give it any inputs the rejection of which would not be inconsistent. That is, I would only give it inputs the equivalent of which in us would be axioms the rejection of which would amount to inconsistencies. And therefore at last, self-subsistent axioms, only on top of these could an AI truly learn anything for itself and develop in any way like a human. The most intuitive such axioms are any of the sufficient ones for modelling dimensionality upwards to at least the five we can understand intuitively, the problem with these axioms is that we can chose which to use in our model of dimensions, placing them in this nomansland of both necessity and accidence. Or in concrete terms, we may create a model of four dimensions by usage only of the nature of circles, we may use only lines, only intersections, only triangles, them all together or the way they relate to one another, we have so many choices because there is no actual ground, I don't know if a computer would operate from a notion of something extra-logical that is not a true ground for the rest of the system such as in our case. Could it ever be able to interpret images through nothing but an algorithm which runs on non-contradiction and an arbitrary set of geometric axioms? It wouldn't derive any knowable meaning from this alone, it would need to form additional conclusions on its own from non-mathematical axioms, so to inquire into the possibility for this we ask: from what are OURS notions of ideas/essences made? To which my answer would be in approximation to inborn ideals, but how does one program a computer to conceive such a thing without referring it to acquired information? Big problem right there, and I think it is impossible but I am open for suggestions.

Excessive amounts of freedom can be used for the unequaled gift of excessive amounts of boredom, the consequence of which is destined to bring anyone back to their nature and back to a similar state of mind to that of the vast majority of our human ancestors, where narratives are again found to matter and being born not out of fancy but instead necessity.

@Yimpa No only me, mememe

@A Fellow Lighter Hi I remember you from a year ago, and perhaps you are right, let us investigate. So if existence discover what it means to be itself through us and this meaning is nothing more or less than what we are then "existence" adds nothing to the conversation whatever, it would be like saying that "there is around us a mere discovery". While if existence discovers itself through us and such things as us are necessary for it, that is, if meaning is a necessary means for existence, then this adds to the conversation that everything in popular culture has the order of things entirely backwards. We already know what meanings are, this is the object of discourse of our entire lives, while existence itself, as and end in itself, and ourself merely as its means, this is far from typical discourse.

Very many autists are blessed with their autism, many others are cursed with their autism, and some are both though none are neither. This statement were very incomplete. Most autistic people want to be included in the social sphere in some way or another, their autism is hardly anything but a curse in these situations, but they also are necessarily less occupied with the ideal of being included than non-autistic people are, they simply do not taste the fruits the others do.

@Leo Gura Are you kidding me? I thought you knew but its actually I who is the only one awake, everyone else here better pump those numbers up those are rookie numbers.

@Breakingthewall Okay my fault at assuming otherwise. And I agree that direct experience is really what matters.

That existence is a more extreme thing than you dare to believe, that it is literally unbelievable that you are alive, that belief itself does not stretch high enough for the absolute ridiculousness and wonders of existence, this is simply because belief is a subset of knowledge and it can not circle itself. I am incapable of believing that something like this world is real, it can only be known directly, our modern culture is an engagement in the delusion of reducing what is already given into a fantastical portion of itself.

@Breakingthewall A funny thing happens however if we investigate the consistency of my own statements under the same rule, the thread is called "existence is unbelievable", now since belief is one half of the self-subsistent concept of belief/disbelief (not to be refused to belief/unbelief, where the nature of the concept is a mere affirmation vs negation) it can on the surface look like I actually fail the consistency test, since the duality used tries to point to something outside itself without needing to point, but I would maintain that there are many believable things and that totality falls beyond the range of those things while you maintain that all things are infinite ("it is absolute"). But the thing is that I do not try to hold onto the unbelievability of existence, I merely acknowledge it as a momentary occurrence and argue for the process hiding behind the occurrence itself, while you wish to hold onto the occurrence and make a narrative out of it.

@Breakingthewall It is actually more plausible that it is you who hold onto thoughts, because you refuse to admit somewhere along the way the nature of the concept of infinity and then wants to take personal ownership of a word that is used in radically different situations with a different meaning than you give to it and refuse to acknowledge that it came from this different place with this different meaning. It probably did not help that what I can only infer as authority figures in your case did the same thing before you, such as Gura.

@Breakingthewall You are trying to convey an experience by means of words that have meaning, "infinity" is a concept that just like "down" loses its meaning unless it is relative to "up", so tell me what is the finite thing in terms of which your statement makes sense? Your experience, whatever it is, I am sure is very real, but it is no more or less downwards itself than it is infinity itself. You try to use concepts but fail to recognise that their literal existence is contingent on making dualities.