Reciprocality

@Leo Gura No the soul is a childish notion. Or it certainly is childish to affirm its existence, but not therefore to speculate about its possibility.

Hi, is it just me who get saddened thinking about how extremely more advanced technology and cultural values will be in four hundred years, if something seriously bad don't happen in the meantime, and we wont never get to experience it for ourselves? If it were possible to sleep in some fancy tank for hundreds of years it would certainly be tempting.

@Carl-Richard I could begin from the conclusion, I could begin from that which without justification is mere narrative, this is how dialogues pan out in everyday situations, but I don't want a conversation to end up in the conclusions I could reach on my own, this would be a waste of precious time, therefore I provide always a reasoning in my responses such that I could easily know if you actually understand what I say and this process of reasoning is what is seemingly hard to convey. I observe that people do not actually care about contradictions in their statements, and have from these low standards developed the disability of noticing them, in your instance it seems that when I say that fomo has a cultural meaning you accept this premise but refuse to acknowledge that this meaning is inconsistent with my situation of wishing to move forwards in time. I am able to be flexible with definitions, this is almost always a necessity in dialogue, but you can not both accept that fomo signifies situations where people feel anxious of not partaking in something and then move beyond this meaning by applying the idea of FOMO to situations where the meaning is absent. 1. "Ultimately we all want to know more than we already know, it would be absurd to reduce it all to a fear" 2. I wanted to know more than I know already in my desire to move forwards in time. Therefore it does not follow that I am in fear of missing out, though it certainly would be possible, for your statement to be meaningful there would be a need for additional justification for the plausibility of my situation being predicable by "fomo" or I would need to intuit something about your statement that is in contradiction to my situation.

Physicalism is a monism, non-duality is as much the absence of mind as it is absence of body, he simply rejects the self from without it when some idealists reject the self from within it. To be without self is to be without duality, whether you try to explain away the mind or explain away the body after the fact will only be of peripheral importance. It is inconsistent though, he uses the self to argue for the singular substance of body, he uses the duality created from his self to reject itself, this inconsistency is solved by an actual present state of non-duality, it is equally inconsistent though to argue against the body by means of the body, like virtually everyone in here does. Another way to solve these two inconsistencies is to reject their truth-values, the way you solve every paradox. Which by analogy would be an intellectual non-dualism.

Impossible. Would be like the pastors, priests and kings from a thousand years ago trying to shut down art and poesy. Though there may be good arguments in benefit of prolonging its inevitable process, which would effectively be trying to shut it down.

Hi @Carl-Richard, Fomo (fear of missing out) is an idea that though it bares similarities to my situation probably don't fit it as a description any better than it does an alcoholics path back to sobriety or an occupied Ukrainian civilian´s longing for freedom, it certainly is not typically used in these situations. Ultimately we all want to know more than we already know, it would be absurd to reduce it all to a fear which were implied in your comment without further context, but not necessarily what you meant. It is not out of boredom of our current age that I said I wanted to travel to the future, and most of the stuff that is going on already doesn't seem too "normal". In addition the world will go through both globalistic and new-tribalistic tendencies within that timeframe, the former out of governmental necessity and the latter out of the realisation that though maximal freedom suits some it provides most of us with unsatisfiable needs and that today people build character out of idealising one another`s behaviour as though their personality were a painting while actual character is built when faced with people we don't naturally work well with out of scarcity, like in the million years prior to our modern age nobody seems to actually look beyond.

If during your study of a textbook you do anything besides read logical conclusions to information you already possess or read axioms you have yet to intuit for yourself then you engage the realm of pure fantasy and storytelling, and if you are involved in a university then you are expected to predicate/judge real situations later in life under these fantastical constructs, which adds a bias in the mix very few sincere humans can afford. This is efficient on large scales, and necessary for the perpetuation of the current western political systems as a whole, but intellectually retarded (sorry the strong language if it offends native speakers) on individual basis and the only way in which the modern culture could maintain the ridiculous notion of reducing knowledge to beliefs. Pure fantasy and storytelling is inherently a narrative for egos, and often a means for power and conquest, though in moderation: dignity and competence, to read 600 fiction books in 4 years is hardly dignified however, but instead to admit insufficiency on the part of character-analysis, to read 600 non-fiction books in 4 years is invariably a naive-realism and a horribly dim one at that, it is to re-imagine Platos forms as real yet self-distributed in the world and to imagine oneself as a partaker in the reality of these forms through pure fantasy. The human mind does not entertain information as speculative, it invariably creates meaning and opinion by means of the information, it forgets that it does not know what has begun to produce new intuitions, which is the only possible explanation why the academic institutions filled with the brightest minds can after so many hundred of years of evolution be even worse off now than ever before in how it treats the universe as a subject instead of a collection of personal predicates, and that nothing more is required for this delusion than observing one another point in the same general direction so as to confirm whether "stone" for one were "stone" for another. Edit: I can grant that plausibility of possible experiences is not pure fantasy, it is unrigourosly logical, and rests thereby in between but must certainly be granted as a fair and intellectually integral way of learning new information as were rejected in the first paragraph.

Originality is almost always painful, and unintuitively only possible through the methods that are accessible to us all, reason, you may want to be original for originals sake but it may be best to concern yourself with an actual object of interest itself as an end in itself instead of it being a means for how original your may appear, which seemed to me to be your goal. Original conclusions to big questions have not been found during study sessions in my case, i think the same is true for most, for me it happens spontaneously when I have been sitting a whole week with nothing but my own thoughts, they will occur more often in the morning and then I can spend 4/6 hours either recapturing what I thought or reasoning by means of those thoughts conclusions that are implied by them, I am at a point where I cant really communicate meaningfully with anyone I know, originality costs in that sense probably more for me than it has to do for you. I don't know if this helped, many idealise originality, and the reasons are plenty, so what are your reasons if you know of any?

Kant had his own way of saying most of what I believe this forum is about, that what you call reality is an extension of yourself. His method were simple, he did not begin with definitions, he began with exposing the justification itself for the existence of particular concepts, this is a remarkable way of thinking, it is also the only viable way of doing philosophy, the difference between most true philosophers and Kant is that he actually knew this and did everything in his power to succeed at it. If you think he started with axioms and definitions like the rationalists of his home country that influenced him such as Wolff and Leibniz and virtually every academic philosopher today then you really have got something terribly wrong. What he is attempting is to bridge the gap between 1. representation of the concrete world, I call these ideas, such as a chair, a house, a man etc. - Abstracted from the world through repeated exposure to the senses and geometric patterns. 2. the conceptual realm which can not represent the concrete world like the things above can. - Abstracted from reason through exposure to dialogue and contradiction. There is a complex domain of abstractions which exists somewhere in between these two categories of things, these are most often systems that contain a plurality of ideas the contradictions of which do not yet exist because there is no AIM to which the contradiction is an insufficient means, this goes into how ideals are absolutely necessary for humans to create concepts, but I wont go into it unless asked. You can call the former (1.) a direct representation and the latter (2.) an indirect representation, I do no wish to language police these things to a novice of Kants work, when you finally grasp what the difference between what is meant with 1. an idea and 2. a concept then the language you use to signify either of them can vary from situation to situation without the possibility to step in any trap. How do we aquire concepts that though they refer to something in the world could not be acquired from the world to which they refer? This is Kants question, I wont introduce his jargon here and fail my hopes of being understood, but it truly is mysterious (at first) the mechanism by which we come to realise the difference between for instance in and out, up and down, dependent and independent, variability and invariance, explication and implication, accident vs essence, I believe that the way in which dichotomies (which is a characteristic of of all possible concepts) are acquired is through nothing more than the affinity for contradiction, that this affinity is itself never payed attention to, and thusly renders the origin of concepts mysterious to us, is because it is the means itself by which we pay attention. We can analogise between this particular means above and the means of typing on a keyboard such to understand clearly what the thing is that they have in common, I have written hundreds of words in this comment but if I close my eyes and try to remember the feeling of my fingers of any given typing combination I will fail miserably, I wont go into the reasons why I wont remember anything but hope to have demonstrated that the time and place of the means themselves by which we do anything is susceptible to being forgotten. That upwards and downwards becomes a duality is possible only if contradictions arises among our mere ideas WITHOUT the duality, to exemplify this statement consider that you wished to tell someone that you have a staircase in your house but they were unfamiliar with two-story houses, to actually communicate intelligibly the purpose and thusly the meaning of a staircase you would have to communicate the concept of upwards because without this concept the purpose would be unthinkable for the person you speak with and thus would there arise contradictions among the elements of your house in the person you communicate with´s imagination of your house. I would consider the idea of a second floor as an accident in the substance of upwards, and use substance theory (without actual metaphysical baggage, only substance in form) to convey the possibility itself for the two people to have a conversation in the first place, though in reality concepts are the least substantial thing, which is also why mystics are the only correct metaphysicians. Kant intellectualised the existence of something he could not describe/predicate, Kant put brakes on speculative philosophy by showing us for instance that we could not prove through logic the existence of god or the soul and that it were absurd to expect material evidence for something the concept of which were immaterial yet contained a materially derived essence such as power in the instance of god. Kant is an ACTUAL sceptic. He lived most of his life skeptical to the independent existence of the objects of his own perceptions and created a dualism out of one of several possible solutions to the problem one is prone to find therefrom. The dualism between a. Mind, which he argues is indispensable and b. that which hides behind the appearances of the mind, his argumentation for this in the Critique of Pure Reason is a direct consequence of what I referred to in the beginning of this comment, he exposed the NEED for the concepts he used by finding contradictions that occur computationally without those concepts and then refrained from saying anything about these concepts except that they had their rightful place IN THE MIND; wherein only they had any subject for predication, this is TRUE SKEPTICISM, this is the likes of David Hume and Matt Dillahunty on steroids. An inconsistency in Kants philosophy do occur when he both says about the things-in-themselves that they are the cause for the thing-for-us while saying about causation that it is itself only something-for-us or of the mind, to argue for a solution to this problem would probably be necessary to be a respected Kantian Metaphysician today, of which there are very few. In any case, Kants dualism varies from non-dualism as a teacup varies between tuesday and wednesday, he is all aboard with saying that you are identical with the objects that surrounds you, in fact he creates the only possible conceptual duality for a person to think that he is one with the objects of its surroundings without actually becoming one with their surroundings. Is existence possible without unification? Or alternatively, is unification possible without self? Kants thing in itself or noumena tries to answer this in the affirmative, this question is out of fashion, but I have no doubt it will come back to haunt us in hundreds new ways for the (hopefully) thousands of years to come where the dogmas which were present as much today as when the Critique were written is considered as just that. And lastly, I can guarantee you that there is nothing in non-dualism that rejects the possibility of an independent existence of things themselves, it simply remains neutral to that very sensible question. If it matters for anyone then Ill tell you that during 2022 I spent probably 400 hours reading Kants Critique, and far more thinking about what I read, he is the biggest man in European Philosophy after Descartes with good reason, I can see the shadows of this weirdly brilliant man in pretty much every philosophy that came after him in the European and American tradition, whether its Postmodernism, Process-Philosophy, Existentialism, Phenomenology, Idealism, Absurdism and even Physicalistic thought. Analytic philosophy is not philosophy, it is a mere explication of the relation itself between premises and their conclusions, so that Kant had virtually no influence here doesn't matter in that sense.

Take a good peak at half the opinions on this forum, should sober you up alright, you know the kind of sober you get from jump scares in horror movies.

you have to love it

You develop good taste and find that only two percent of those you typically watch are worthy your time anyway, and that unless they engage that in you which require your conscious efforts it is evident of your weakness and that as a maxim you suppose yourself strong. You develop your negative judgments (note they are not in want of material on the site you reference) and feel into how ridiculously limited your time is (and should be) as this pile of tissue, perhaps then you will not need the bandages presented elsewhere in this thread, but lets admit it, what are the chances? So I vote for the path to least resistance, find the plugin for you" : )

@Inliytened1 No if non-duality is real then actuality is a necessity, and of want neither of god nor its power to create itself. If reality is non-dual then god as inevitably conceptual in communication is void of all meaning that is not also present without that concept, If non duality is real than our descriptions of a god owed a definition is false, if god is owed no definition that is not equal in truth value its referent then the claim "it has to create itself" is vacuous, empty, meaningless, absurd, silly, ambiguous and corrupted.

For that which is possible there can not be a possible state giving rise to it, yet for anything actual to at all be given it must be also such a thing of the power precisely to make something else possible, this then which is possible is confined to and never itself beyond what is at any state actual, that there are anything at all is thereby a dance of the will in an interplay with the things not initiated in possibility by means of it but given life from it. What is ultimately possible is therefore all things, the reason we are given any particular such light is neither here nor there, for any sufficient reasons are self evident each, and in proof thus found in all directions. To that which is possible only actual states can give rise, and in all actual states possible ones are come actual in the force of will, but owing to some force Y there are the possible in the actual itself, this Y must have no inverse for otherwise nothingness as a then condition for infinite will would be necessary, but such can not be the case for then what is actual now as the condition for what is possible in itself would be subject to doubt, as nothing else than doubt suffices in the face of things which could possibly have been otherwise, such things then are taken both as possible and actual with no regard for bare minimums of cohesion. The problem arises when the will is confused for the means of thinking its representation, as predicating the past of that which is only present in our aid for making actual what in the actual is potential. The freedom of the will, though minuscule in its own right, would never be so powerless and out of order to be contained in that by means of which it gives rise to new moments (such as memories), instead it must be in their eternal proximity. We are then justified in saying that for the little control we have -- nothing carries over into the past but all is with us towards all futures. That which is possible f in what is actual T (now) may very well itself be necessarily actual trough inference; in a prior universal chain of events yet determined as such as the actuality F of that possibility f long after T. In fact, no world failing to follow this rule of dual actuality to possibility is even imaginable (imagination as the outer limitation for all possible worlds), and such a world would thus be impossible. Something which is possible can not be the condition for the possibility of something else, the will must be the only thing preventing what is possible from actuality The dual actuality to any potential are related to those potentials by means of either a-p in force Y or p-a in will, all of which are totally encompassed by a law of causality, which itself takes the form either in 1. magnitudes of substances / magnitude as duration in time (part to part) or 2. emergence (community of parts in a (seeming) immediate and definite whole), both of which constitutes a finitude of objects given us as patterns in what I deem constant reality as =1. in addition to paragraph 1: What is actual can never itself be the singular condition for something else that is actual, due to which temporality crossing (visiting) the constants in reality (substances) as that necessary addition makes determinate those substances and ultimately the supreme necessity of not only something as opposed to nothing, but also of the very something in particular. We may expect that which is equal to 1 in the combined whole of the world of substances to fail our instruments are their smallest, not merely by engineering but also by our own intellectual upper bound, as evident already reminder of need of edit

There is something about the rain, how it lives so very well also at our deadest. There is something about the soul, how it carries us out into any such fluid. There is something about steps, how each of such multiplies into any presence and how tomorrow forms in that presence as its ultimate end, there is something in the rain. A becoming into itself, an emergence for its own end trough accidents of its substance. Elements in their reduction as emergent from a form they are without, empty. Elements as accidents not in what they represent, neither in how they appear, but in how as appearance they are given in reason, they are forms given us trough our reason, but not as such forms the condition for that in which reason takes hold, mind. Otherwise we would as suggested elsewhere, explode into a hot soup. Elements as essential representations of the thing in itself, but accidental of it in how they are combined together to fit into our desires. Elements as analogies in combinations, as necessary on their own, metaphysics as the maintenance of their compound. Metaphysics proper speaks not in the positive, but acknowledges merely how for being there is required that nothing is taken away from it, that in certain neutrality nothing more must be said than 'I wish me some music while in the storm I carry on', to not die of apathy in the face of insignificance as the ultimate realization not of the purity of awareness which has nowhere to turn, but as our self's certain annihilation. Our, mine certain annihilation from the manifold of temporal variation, the soul coming to rain. Never completely to return in figure yet never therefore totally absent in form.

My thoughts are like fluids, which is how they are so hard to predict the outcome of and justify fully, yet so well adapted to fill out empty surfaces and spaces. I have changed dramatically to counterbalance that, I have put shackles on the mind to hold objects with its hands, and it were good I did.

You can triangulate some sense of your behavior by testing for all sorts of things, including Asperger, but it makes little sense to say that you are a statistical representation. You can not have Asperger unless you are Asperger, therefore as in line with the above it is absurd to predicate Asperger of you, though there surely are instances of people where it would be more absurd. This does not help you with how to understand the diagnosis itself, as neither were it supposed to, it is meant for you to consider yourself as though you are Asperger, but not literally so. If having is not being then having means little to nothing. There is a triviality of the classification itself which admittedly has no bearing on the importance of considering yourself antithetically and synthetically in relation to the idea of the diagnosis and the many symptoms under it, it is not merely a quantitative matter of degrees that makes for the triviality aforementioned but a paradigmatic matter of which ideal diagnosis could be by statistical means best predicated of you that is far from real today, and that even this ideal would not as a statistics essentialize you but merely be better as a means for making sense of how you behave. The system is simplified the way it is for good reasons that has to to with scarcity, it would be like a sin to reduce ones own comprehension of oneself to that which makes the bear minimum run its wheels, I do not suggest that you have done so in particular, only that it appears a lot in general.

When I discovered that everything in science is a bunch of stuff considered as 1 divided by x (as meaning every perception having in it the possibility for finding something which stands in some perfect proportion to something as potentiated by a different perception) then I also understood that everything computational and thought about in science is a bunch of stuff as accidental instantiations of something which is beyond all of these, that math is just that, a rational system which comprises the variables you apply in the division of some initial input, which itself is a discovery of the condition required for it initially appearing in us. That we are ourself the condition for all possible systems one may venture into, come across, that most of the work one would do thereafter is a justification of how it could initially appear trough us in the beginning, except this is rarely admitted. That this which is beyond our deliberate computations of it is also predicated on ourself as the condition for such computations is where you are left at awe. We are thought science, thinking, judging the way we are thought counting, that around us and inside us there are a bunch of stuff laying around that we can put under scrutiny and that somehow by these peculiar formulas and methods they just happen to go neatly together, this is insanity. As though our counting these things justifies their being closed of such to possibly be subject for quantification. We are thought it as a story, or as a joke, instead everything in this world, as in what it means for there to possibly be a world at all, is a rational system the paradoxes of which are a function of the finitude of the requirement for consciousness to distribute over it. For the metaphors in our perceptions to asymmetrically go together when the empirical sensation is cancelled from our thinking of that world, to be rational requires us to avoid emptying our metaphors/concepts for their corresponding perception, unless by that procedure a possible experience were merely anticipated and not also tried justified. I kept it short and simple, with no high hopes of it going home anywhere, but on the off chance it does I feel justified posting it here, if you care about any of it feel free to pm me if you like.

Reality can not be real except in an infinite regression, instead it is up to us to judge if something is owed a pattern beyond the place it is found (what others call objective), this entity being something that one can bring back (or find) throughout time, or simply being beyond any very particular timeframe is what most people actually mean what they speak of whether something is real, though they do not therefore need to understand that this is what they actually mean. Our everyday perceptions often have these characteristics, and are therefore necessarily real in so far as we have them, in the sense that we actually mean it when we consider it possible for something to be real. It is an enormously absurd undertaking to then consider what you yourself are looking for to be gone when you are staring at it. Are the things we see real beyond us seeing them? Yes, that is what it means if you can independent of any particular time affirm its reality again and again, is it real when we see them, yes so far as they belong to the pattern which is independent of them yet applicable to them alone. This does not imply that we should know what this domain is like in which it is beyond us, instead it implies the opposite, our limitations. What is curious is that the empirical itself is not the real in our perceptions (for then you would need an infinitely vast knowledge of independent representations of such things), instead certain empirical sensations (say a million shades of purple) will a priori class into a given reality so that you can experience it and judge whether that means it is indeed real as you of course should as testament to your sanity. Seeing is a very ambiguous notion, for it speaks both of the empirical magnitudes of color and light, but also of the things we think of as given us in combination with these very colors and lights constituting perceptions, we may have a perception of a whale under our bed but that will not mean it will actually reappear as a pattern under it when we look there again, nor will it mean that what truly constitutes a whale in the scientific terms will reappear if indeed the very general notion of whale did do so. You may consider everything real, but that does not change the very difference between a pattern and a coincidence, you coinciding with a given perception of a whale does not constitute the pattern of whales, the pattern owed the typical linguistic notion of reality. So my question to you would be from where does the insistence on calling everything real take roots if every substantial difference remains regardless of what you call it? Edit: As to reality being real as infinite regression, it is regressive because it would be an empty computation, it would be like insisting on saying hellohellohellohihihello when all you actually tried to do is greet someone. IT would be a malfunction, an error of or insistence on non-meaning. Something must be real, for otherwise you could never have even questioned it, so then the question is what it is, this which is real can not be behind what is required for you to question it by that very logic, so then it must be our perceptions, the idea that our perceptions must be independent of us AS a physical thing is the place everyone's mind got trapped somehow, the physical is an assumption we bring over into the precise domain which rendered such things as the physical outside it by being (the domain that is) independent of us.

@MarkKol Being human and stupid is almost an oxymoron, it is actually because of you not understanding how you and others are different that it is absurd to compare yourself to them, you will not be able to understand this, nobody are, therefore do not compare yourself to "them". Instead, try looking around you, how many patterns do you see? If something repeats itself in space or time then it is a pattern, it is impossible for you to have written this text above and not see more such patterns than you can compute, intelligence is magnitudes beyond computation, everyone who ever did something important used their spare time computing the patterns they saw, if they were self obsessed about how hard this task were they would never be able to contribute so monstrously as they did. You are simply not that important, but the patterns you stand the chance of seeing are immortal, eternal or absolute, the deeper you see them the more original you will become in relation to them, if you care about being smarter then you have to take the unintuitive leap of faith and stop including the "you" in that equation.

If you understand holonism then the codependency of points and straight lines, second-dimensionality and triangles etc should really just be application of that understanding, making meaningful axioms unprovably true and therefore not "assumed" axioms. Which is another way to say that any particular system is not contained in but instead projected by an absolute system. Containment is inherently paradoxical, time is the opposite of containment, time can be referenced because of the disjunction between the very metaphors that renders it, these disjunctions are in a naive and irreducible proximity to each other held in short term memory. Most logicians would find my understanding of axioms circular, but they are radically oblivious to how they have to first assume AWAY the straight line from its inherent points, they do this because of the accidental nature trough which they may be given points and straight lines in conjunction. My whole philosophy is the opposite, there are platonic forms/substances that are perfect in a world we do not understand very well, we are mere instruments of it, if you triangulate many things by walking trough "time" then you should get a "glimpse" of them, you do not infer from apples their shape, you impose blindly their shape on the canvas of colors and light. In fact there very being such a thing as proofs proves there being unprovable truths (by disjunction), for otherwise nothing could be in conjunction to something else and there would literally only be super symmetry of proofs in every possible direction, no identity anywhere. That is, proofs are computational accidents to the proven object, some axioms (without even taking a look at any single one of them) must therefore necessarily be true and not assumed. In conclusion, and I am (a little) sorry for being too eager in your thread, the asymmetric world of mere information (pure empirical sensation) and the perfect world of forms are each others contingent being, precisely like (a. proofs, b. computation and c. accidents) inheres to (a. true axioms, b. the computed and c. substances), there would be nothing of the latter group without the impermanence of the former as there would be nothing of the former group without the constance of the latter, there literally is no constance of the latter except for in relation to the impermanence of the former, you would be left with nothing without the relation. An analogy here (to the relation itself) is that of physical emergence, or emergent causation, there is literally nothing more "contained" in a system a-z than a bunch of symbols, yet emergent of them there is more than their summation (alphabet), and it is computationally irreducible that it is so, which is why you are either thinking of the symbol or the alphabet but never actually both, that this is possible is remarkable.

Instead of considering logic to be a bunch of steps to follow, instructions to be algorithmic-ally applied, I would instead ask what is the given totality of interest/object of concern in a 'singular' moment and what attributes does it hold, when have you exhausted its elements and when have you not? Logic is not something we develop, logic is something trough which the world is given us, what we can develop is a meta cognition of how this is so such that we have good tools not to reduce it to logic. (this may sound most peculiar, is it not already reduced to logic if I claim that it (the world) is already given us by means of logic? nope. This has to do with completeness, for only in saying that I have the complete (or x->complete) set of logical rules for the way the world is given me can I be faulty in saying that it is so, and only in exemplifying a logical condition for which the world is not given me can I reduce it to it.) Logic is prior to conscious calculation, it is because of the inherence of logic to consciousness (as you know it) that it is possible to calculate at all, I would begin asking a bunch of questions like "windows are on every house I've seen, what essentializes windows such that I did not take them for something else, and what are their accidents, that is, what does window have that they do not need to have to be recognized as windows?" The essence of windows can then be applied in a statement-structure such that "every window is of glass" or accident "a window can be of glass but does not have to", formal logic is the application of the universality of the structure of these statements (x can be of Y but not always), logic "includes" also the particular window and its particular accidents/essences and substances, the universality itself is deductive while everything else so far as it is formalized is inductively applied. Formal logic typically disregards everything which has to do with real-world thought, and attempt only answering questions that relate to the structure of statements in the very general. Axioms are assumptions, many people will consider a priori conditions for proof as assumptions yet believe in the truth of the proof anyway, I have spent uncountable hours trying to understand the mind in which this makes sense but to negative avail. Which is to say that you may formalize "there is a straight line between every two points" as an axiom, and in some systems it is a mere assumption (general relativity) but it is non the less an a priori condition for the system itself, as this condition it is not an assumption, it is not for instance an assumption that you must have a base to apply a uniform metric to a function in calculus. The domain of "every point" is prior to us looking for them, it is possible to look for points because their domain is necessary. Logic does not rest on axioms, despite everyone telling you so, axioms rests entirely on logic (even the most inane assumption does so), the alternative is oblivion and paradox, not computational paradox, literal the 'sky became a literal pencil forever" paradox. Axioms are defined by being unprovable statements, yet some axioms are a condition for the possibility of computing all possible proofs (they are often implicit in actual formal axioms, these (proofs) are a synthesis of axioms by logical necessity. This necessity is prior to the very computation, if not then every second of our life would literally be us lifting ourself up from the bath-tub by our hair, which is a form of mysticism and skepticism in conjunction that you will find pretty much everywhere on this forum. Logic has nothing to do with completeness except for in the efforts at failing such a task, you do not have to find a consistent set of sets to be conscious of windows and distribute its identity over everything owed its essence, you are doing this NATURALLY, to be aware of this being what you are doing can and should make you more competent at doing it abstractly in your head, as I presume you desiring. Formal logic is almost the opposite of logic, and is analogous to building a boat instead of swimming in the sea, logic is like the air you breath in, it brings you a new moment. Metaphors in disjunction are our operating system and the condition for time as such, the units or metric of logic are metaphors. Pure mathematical ideals (that transcend the metaphors in which they are found) rests upon accidents of experience to be discovered and initiated in metaphors (by the synthesis of imagination), which is why it is so hard to admit to (or understand) them being a condition for our existence).

Well whatever it is I believe we are pawns for its initiation, instruments to its cause.

People are often at their smartest and their stupidest at the same time. This can be easily conceivable by the strong correlation between memorability and emotion, logic is very easy for people when there is something on the line, as in when they are themselves involved with its conclusion, yet this is also when they are the most biased against it. When they learn to be less biased they can naturally think better on matters they already care for, not despite of but because of underlying emotions. The trickster in this equation is even more valuable, that is: the 'opposite' is also true, the ease at which we remember by means of emotions distributes over a wider domain if given less self bias.

Many people in here, well most people in general anyway are confused about the difference between a category and a concept. They are happy to say that something is such and such, to consider something in general, but this though it is a mental process is not conceptual for the simple reason that you are not thinking in the act itself, instead you are performing what is equivalent of memorization. You are merely experiencing the minimal association two things have to each other and giving them a name. You presume to be thinking when instead you put things beside each other, and accept naively that here is where they belong. Then you engage in some conversation presuming to actually learn something new when instead you have just left every category back from where you found it, and at best arbitrarily given it an obscure new element. The reason your head can be controlled like this is because of.. feelings, these guide your categories, these makes you presume to understand what you talk about just because you take it in your own power to put some element into some set. The easiest way, I have found, to be able to check whether categories points to an underlying understanding of something substantial, is to find whether you need or do not need to apply the category itself in some conversation in which the opponent disagrees with its applicability to reality/evidence/content of discussion. If you think that you can define the understanding then you are blind, for nothing is understood which comprises the elements which retrospectively is associated with it, for anyone engaged in substantial meaningful dialogue, and are not merely interested in stories or visions, must actually synthesize information they think they knew ANEW and in new ways. That is, the very structure of the manifold of memories should change, requiring no addition to it. I consider exposition as opposed to definition, to be what you do when instead of remembering something, you think something, in a continual effort of exposing the world and yourself of its peculiarities are you justified in considering the word you use to denote it meaningful and worthy a definition. To be concrete, I will take the example of consciousness (a little ironic, ill admit it), it is established discourse in here that everything of reality is "consciousness" but here is maintained minimal effort at making it clear which of the 30 theories on consciousness (and their antitheses) the understanding of consciousness is based on, and so subject a and b may feel great in their mutual disjunctive relation to culture at large, forming a category of the relationship, have not therefore any mutual understanding at all. What lurks wound the corner is a total incapacity to consider or pinpoint, such as based on the example above, the difference between peoples actual experience of living in the world, as well as what they are actually pointing towards.