Reciprocality

@Spiritual Warfare It appeared in the OP that you want more than you have and even more than you can have, it implies that you are someone who does not have enough and that what you want is itself more than enough. You also say that you want to know the truth, which implies that your knowledge reveals to you its own limits, but what if this too is impossible and that your desire for the truth is more-so a reflection of your desiring than the truth itself, just like above?

@Sugarcoat Or what if the main point means the purpose of the post and that purpose could only be revealed in the answers to the questions I asked?

@Sugarcoat Are there always main points? I am saying several coherent things, and since the concept of a "main point" and "coherence" have a very similar relation to their respective compliments such as "subservient points" and "several inputs" the coherence should answer your question. I could state their coherence directly, it would require overly abstract language, and it would be somewhat like putting the cart before the horse. The coherence of many things can be elucidated by mutual exploration and exemplification, if your question couples directly to something I said it should have a higher chance of me providing a good answer.

Take one day at the time, and if that becomes depressing take one hour at the time... or five minutes? or 5 seconds? Unless your problems are physical pain then they are connected to your memories, and the further ahead you are looking into things the deeper into your memories you access your thinking.

When is falsity admissible or search for truth not preferable to it? We often think that we should believe what is true, but can it sometimes be more important to a) have a belief than b) ones beliefs being true if sufficiently tested? Perhaps even if that belief is very rigid or inflexible, can it still be more important than the truth? Could a false belief open up for more truths than a true belief? Which would then tend to be more important, do we have a metric to determine so?

I do not get it, why is all this stuff here, I have all these cartoons that helps me explain it, but those cartoons explains only how these things interrelates. Why is the stuff here in the first place? The only reason the keyboard I am typing on don't blow my mind is that I am familiar with it, when I look at it there is memory, when I touch it there is memory, but it is not memory, so what is it and does it end? If it could end then wouldn't there have to be someone there to experience the experience going away?

I am afraid of attachment to perspectives, I see everything from as many perspectives as I can, so much so that if I do not have a perspective I become rather paralysed. This tendency that perhaps others on the forum can relate to can be seen as a discomfort with ambiguity as much as it can be seen as comfort with ambiguity. The multiplicity of perspectives enables me to accurately richly predict certain outcomes, what I am wondering is how do you deal with being unable to act when you do not have a distinct idea of what the consequences will be, have you found any consistent patterns associated with that situation? Have you for example found that being more attached to a particular perspective helpful to deal with the paralysis? The reason I ask is that I would like to gather some concrete real world anecdotes on similar situations. edit: a few inaccuracies.

@Atb210201 Certainly important values in some ways, but does that address the topic? And couldnt an immense mixture of love, peace and calmness contribute to perplexity, confusion and the form of decision paralysis I try to hint at?

@HojoThe last couple of months I have integrated far more of the outside, with apparent positive effects on my well being. And unless you meant something else by the quoted segment then I think this suggestion does not apply to my situation. In the context of the unquoted part of the reply I can definitely see the method you suggested in the quote as being an effective survival-strategy, but I am more talking about a multiplicity of perspectives on the world somewhat akin to what you can read in Keryo Koffas post.

@Leo Gura So right now I am unable to imagine concrete examples of the paralysis that happens when too many perspectives interferes with the decision making process, which is almost self-referential. I imagine that the failure of providing examples of the very problem I am contending with implies that I have falsely identified the problem itself, but another perspective tells me that not all problems can be reduced to a concrete level of information-exchange and that this could be one of those situations. Another perspective tells me that to even ask for concrete examples is ridiculous in this context and another perspective tells me that someone may think that it is ridiculous to think that it is ridiculous. If you consider this reply to be a decision then it funnily answers your question, especially if you consider that I almost did not post it at all.

Id prefer both Krishnamurtis, to my memory Mooji do not go very deep into why the mind is so occupied with all kinds of motives and fantasies, am I mistaken? Where as Jiddu could not fixate more on those kinds of questions. Mooji is mostly trying to produce the effect of no-self in the listener by providing a momentary space for it, I am doubtful as to how effective it can be. Edit: however, his energy is lovely, almost too lovely.

Everyone who both knows that they actually know very little and wants to expand their knowledge must have a strong ego, because besides the receiver of knowledge only the ego can make what is chaotic and disintegrated coherent and there is no expanding of knowledge in a disintegrated and chaotic state. Don't we reject everything that we don't know? How would we stand in relation to the things we do not know if we neither tried to learn it nor rejected it?

@Joshe Yes I am talking about this closeness too, but I am also paying attention to how the thing that the baby is close to is a multitude of stimuli, and I believe the closeness to that stimuli would be no issue if it weren't for how many different things that multitude consists of. The multitude of stimuli, particularly the stimuli of the eye, share no identical properties until they are put in motion thus sharing the property of relative movement. The emptiness is not in the stimuli itself but in the perspective on it (the perspectives are absent or empty). It may be excruciating pain indeed for the baby to not see the connection between things, if the child is young enough the blue on the wall and the white in the ceiling are as disconnected as communism and libertarianism. When after weeks or months there is less and less correlation between the crying of the baby and the absence of movement of the cradle you can infer that it has formed a memory of movement as pertaining to the blue and the white as a potential. (which for context is the kind of thing from where you yourself in adult age have abstracted the notion of potentiality, and for which reason you can even think of that concept). You call the cradle rock a distraction, perhaps implying that the movement and stimuli of the skin and internal balance itself introduces variables that takes the focus away from the chaos of the eye-stimuli, this should stand as a hypothesis on its own as is likely a far more normal interpretation of the baby-cradle situation as well as having more explanatory power. My idea is far more subtle but connects to far more examples when we abstract from it its essential elements, that one singular identity (which would be movement in my theory) reduces stress in our mind when it applies to many particular substances is so far as I am aware always the case, which is why our whole body-mind situation has an ego. The self is to the whole of reality what movement is to an array of colours, the self minimises the stress in our being by distributing itself over every element of reality. Edit: I am aware that the self produces new forms of stress, which we then try to minimise by removing ourself from reality itself, and when we alternatively try to change that self it too removes us from reality.

@PurpleTree That is exactly it, as has been observed by many who pays attention to impulses or intents they arise from nowhere with or without agitation from without, we do not intend them before they arise. Isn't it likely that it is because we identify so much with these intents thus existing continuously with them that we can live our whole life without seeing that they are not the medium which experiences them?

By dissecting each minute intent or impulse in an array of many in a row shouldn't it be possible to reveal the one who identifies with them from an angle foreign to it, if not also to see thereby the purpose that intent has in the whole mind-structure, objectively? What besides objectivity could possibly be revealed IF one succeeded with identifying the impulse of intent itself? And what would result from knowing ones every intent, how would the self-identity maintain itself if all the impulses that gives rise to it are known objectively, especially if we assume that all things that are known objectively are universally true as we may even confirm all our ongoing subtle intents to be?

@El Zapato Were you saying about these deeper thoughts that they lead to truths about perceptions or just truths that does not apply to any perception nor their relationship at all?

That sounds like a question for Leo, but the practice of 'mindfulness' probably would help focus that particular 'character of thought'. S1 I've long felt substantial and deeper thought occurs at the 'meta' level. It leads to the truth beneath the perception. And, in my mind, it is most important. S2 Perhaps the deconstruction of thought processes is the natural by-product of 'missing the connection'? We could view the non-separation as a feature rather than a bug. @El Zapato S1: You say that the deeper thoughts you have experienced that occur on a meta level have been more "substantial" than others, which I can understand as a metaphor as a replacement for what it actually is, but not in a way that relates to my usage of the word substantial in the above context. I mean that stimuli is substantial in that it is prior to everything else, or as the formal definition goes "not a predicate of anything else", and I consider it plausible that for our thoughts to arise to a level where it can exist alongside something substantial that it must compensate for the lack of its own substantiality/priorness, and this compensation may be explicable. S2: It could be, but would you elaborate on what you mean by "missing the connection", it were not entirely clear to me.

For context: my statement^ SOUL: There is at least one other alternative... observing. No ignorance, no pursuit, no stress, just simple awareness. @SOUL Interesting, let us say you engaged in mere observation or pure awareness of the present moment, for how long would you succeed at this before suddenly a certain perspective or connection were drawn, and once that is done what other options do you have than ignoring or pursuing the connection/perspective? And for how long would you sit purely aware like that before you experience stress from the chaos of pure being without knowing, connecting and pursuing? Surely we are interesting not only in fancy display of hypotheticals but to actually test whether all I say here unfolds. And if it does not unfold in your own practice the way I presented above here then I am all ears.

@Letho Though I'm not fond of the recursive use of objectivity here I think what you mean to ask is for me to provide examples of an objective property in a particular intent, as seen from a perspective outside of the self into which it normally integrates immediately. Let us say you go on a walk and you spot the clouds darkening above your head and decide therefore to walk back inside, on reflection of the intent to turn back from the walk you discover that it arises for the purpose of your comfort. The revelation I alluded to about how this relate to the whole mind-structure is minimised in this example because of how aware you would already be that you hate wet clothes. This alludes to the necessary subtlety of examples sufficient to produce those objective characters of intent that reveals the self from a new side, so let us say instead that somebody you love hurt you and you go on ignoring them for months without recognising it, the objective character of your own intent remained hidden throughout all that time because if it immediately revealed a new angle to you it may reveal a vulnerability that would cause a heightened disgust or distress towards the person who did it to you. The whole situation would not be very subtle, but the reason you ignored the other person would be.

What do all the things you know have in common? If we know something then isn't it about something else? "I know that my cat eats fish til there is only bones left!" But what does the above example have in common with every other kind of knowledge, what separates the knowledge from the thing that the knowledge is about?

@Someone here All you are doing is asserting again and again that your criterion for the concept of being is that it is sensory experience, that is a very personal business with no clear benefit other than to avoid the taxing efforts of distinctly identifying abstract concepts. But if we investigate what being is we find that only "nothing" could be opposed to it, which means that nothing is opposed to it thus everything is being, this of course is not profound but only an explication of what is obvious. We have good reason to state that sensory direct experience is primary and that everything besides it is a consequence of it, that would include all our memories, knowledge, relationships, self-impressions, desires and concepts. But that does not mean that these other things are "nothing", that would simply create ambiguities of language and likely cause you some ongoing stress thereby. The following two statements are borrowed from the quote above. (a). There is nothing but sensory direct experience. (b). Even thoughts and imagination is certainly felt or experienced. If you were consistent with your terms you would state not only that thoughts and imagination are felt and experienced but that they were direct sensory experience, which is absurd and the reason why (a) is false. The only intension that could produce (b) that relates to the assertion of (a) would be that somehow (b) substantiates (a).

@El Zapato Yes! That would be an abstraction of knowing. First there is the thing that just is, the primary of existence, stimuli and will/impulse. Then there is memory and identifying things, thus knowing about things. And then there is memory and identity turning in on itself, the "knowing that one knows" you referred to, in which situation one focuses on the knowing itself. Why is it possible for us to focus in on the knowing itself? Must the knowledge take on a character entirely different from the impression of stimuli to compensate for its insubstantiality? What character would that be?

@MutedMiles Let us exercise what you propose, let us sit and just observe the pulsations and vibrations of phenomena and so directly so that there is no knowledge about any of it only the it and no ego needed to make sense of it. And indeed in this most naked state both the "I" and its world perishes, and from within this momentary halt there are only the sensations and not a slightest clue as to the relation among them, which is also why it does not adress the topic at hand. When it comes to actually dealing with my ideas you start in the wrong end, you propose that the ideas I present are just created broad categories that serves to map reality to, assuming thereby that reality and the map are not already related independent of any ephemeral creative effort. We are inclined to ask what puts us out of the momentary direct bliss you pointed us towards, do we need to assume that something does it, is it by chance that this question is found natural to ask in that context again and again? Thousands of years with linguistic evolution has given us the word that refers to it, in english it is called "will", it arises upon this and that sensory stimuli prior to our discussion and prior to mental models and maps, this can be as easily and directly verified as the "pulsations and vibrations" of phenomena can. You may re-read the post and comments in the context of this will, particularly as it relates to the less chaotic situation the baby experiences when stimuli are set in motion, if that is counter intuitive I would urge you to imagine what it is like to experience a whole array of completely different substances without any one thing that is the same in them, such as is the case with colours of varying intensity in sense perception. Just from this curious example of the baby in the cradle a whole world of correct philosophical insight is possible, and may make one able to see the whole operation of humanity in an instant.

What I am saying is so obvious that I am risking not giving it a second thought, but if when I do present it nobody believes it I become forced to take it more seriously. How aware are you of how much you know nothing about? And if you claim to be so thoroughly aware of this, what is your relation to it besides the moments in which you ignore or refuse it? Does the act of ignoring not come with an equal effect in the psyche, does it happen in a vacuum? And how would this which you know nothing about relate to your mind if it were neither ignored nor pursued? If you think that there is no third alternative to ignoring or pursuing then you are mistaken, your mind does indeed spontaneously do either or but only because its prima operandi is to reduce the chaos that produces stress, this stress being that third alternative. Then there is the claim that not only is the ego the very coherence that all unknown things have to one another and that the ego itself changes shape somewhat in proportion to the kinds of things it actively ignores but also that the bigger the ego the more truth there is to unveil or the higher the capacity (but not therefore tendency) to expand ones knowledge.

@MutedMiles Why does the baby cry when you stop rocking its cradle? The movement of colours relative to the observer is a singular identity that distributes over all that sensory impression and reduces the sense of disorder one experiences from just seeing a multitude of things that are extremely different. Why do all matter have mass and all matter with mass have inertia? Because if various things in a composite are not identical in some way their only relation could be synthetic and only conscious agents are known to give rise to the synthetic identities. (something similar is that when semantic is insufficient you also need syntax, syntax being a momentary means for the words to give rise to a whole that can not be found merely in the sum of the words) (Should we continue with all kinds of examples?) My basic assertion is that the ego is to the bank of memory and knowledge what relative movement is to the composite of colours (it is even more interesting than that, since the absence of the latter directly produces the very distress that compliments the ongoing oscillation between it and the "will for order" which relative to different stimuli gives rise to the ego. My thesis in this thread simply expands on the above and states that not only does our ego relate to all our knowledge but it even relates to all that we do not know, via reducing its disorder by simply ignoring or rejecting it (pretending as though it is not real, which it does de facto or in practice)