Reciprocality

@lxlichael Lol, should I change name to The Wise Erratic? No, how much misanthropy for instance, can be combined with wisdom?

@Someone here The understanding may be "components" themselves of us, but are themselves never made of components. Understanding is not a calculation, even though calculations may aid us to its end. The parts themselves of our calculations, those are the understanding. (which means that understanding is made of finite resources, as in adding upon itself logoritmically and not linearily as pretty much everyone believes, there are an infinite amount of fantasies to be held, these accumulates upon themselves given some some initial understanding and more often than not drowns them. The most complex theorems of math are by analogy, only representations of some understanding which itself is not complex. I seem to find it amazing how the mind creates naturally this whole thing without conscious effort at presence, the understanding is for me the appreciation/representation of what is already done, could I one day show people of any culture, any class or predicament what they have always done and known subliminally, then I guess that connect to a higher aim, as you ask for. To represent the understanding is different from reducing it, instead of saying that the radiator,fan,gpu,cpu comprises the pc and substantiates it by the composition itself I would only find accidents, I could sit here for a week and find millions of accidents of the computer, the computer would be a different idea than when I begun zooming in, but this idea would itself be irreducible to the sum of all these components if given a new such week. It is literally mystical as fuck, that there is such a thing as understanding, I am at awe to no end. The components are always and will always be retrospectively combined in order for us to feel validated in our understanding, but the success-rate one may feel in doing this is inversely proportional to the significance of the understanding itself. So instead of reducing and equating I predicate things on other things, that is, the understanding of division predicates numbers, without dividing some identity in half there could be no distribution of the relation between the two halves on a third etc. "3" is literally possible if and only if the abstraction of say "rocks" are given you in, but not from, the experience of many, and then divided in half. Then there is the set of everything, rocks, trees, humans... This is a transcendental predicate, a priori, it is not a summation of all the sets, instead it is there WITH any sets. These halves are then every rock you ever experience (even those in the background, it is even because of this distribution that they can go unnoticed in the background), the duality is not between "you and the rock" but between the rock and its manifold. There is always more to something than its predicate, the understanding is whatever is more, you do not have to think about the predicate to understand, that is only a characteristic of retrospective combination. To connect to minimal cohesion giving the possibility of human endevours, that is a top value for me, but it has nothing to do with humans in particular, it has to do with any and all possible intelligent emergent forms of consciousness, so the value regards the connection to the necessity of existence.

Erratically throwing away happiness from love, success, fame and wisdom even, in the pursuit of understanding. If happiness does not come as an accident to understanding, then I am at war with it, but only then.

x is y

It is an oxymoron, it is like saying that there can be an opinion independent opinion. Not only is non-relative morals present only in fantasy, but the very hypothesis is paradoxical. Instead, the question is why "morals" are as they are, it is first here that any universals are given meaning, namely on what there is of some thought or language which makes it appear that people are in agreement. Or some universal truth concerning the reality as opposed to content of the hearts intentionality itself such as in Emotivism, or in relation to thought thereafter, cognitivism. If me and you and every other man in some known world would express agreement on every imaginable virtue, good act or deed, even that has no bearing concerning relative character of the values held. In arguing otherwise you would also have to say that you can look trough my eyes, or scratch my back with my hands alone. When someone speak of morals in a context different from its inherent relativity, they are not speaking about morals, and are unaware of how the mind have tricked them. They are changing the goalpost as they walk along, in one instance morals are normative as what is held such that some action may be taken, in another morals are categories or descriptions of this object of concern taken for the object itself. They are confused because their whole life they thought that there were such a thing as a synthetic agreement, you and me may both agree to "murder Putin" but this is a description of a moral sentiment not the actually described, you and me may both vote for some assassination or do the act itself, but it is totally under determined whether this represents the same sentiment, the actual value itself. There is absolutely no meaningful meta ethical "middle" between saying that morals are statements concerning logical necessity/natural validity, as a mere calculation on the one hand and on the other saying that morals express emotions. and are totally relative. Just like behaviorism is not psychology neither is a theory nor a sentence of moral essence.

Would you be without directionality? Time is what you have when actuality is yet to be potential, to be what it can potentially become. That time is considered present is an accident of the emptiness of what is considered potential as inherent in whatever is actual. Presence is distributed (if we allow ourself an analogy) over "quanta" of time, due to the finitism of plural phenomenon, which means that presence is determined by various identities that inheres to each other, there is no "point" in time because presence is an indivisible manifold of finite elements trough perpetuity, we call this consciousness. A second analogy would be a ship the name of which remains despite the renewal of all its materials (given some minimal congruence), the identity of the reality of the ship DID require some materials, though the name only initially so. A ship is only "the" ship if it is the one initiated by the materials, rendering the last statement necessarily true. Potential is empty, acceleration empty, vector empty, direction empty, and requires to be filled. Thoughts are supposed to be of this character, meaningless on their own but of instrumental significance, everything is thus that without which a void would tear everything apart. Absolute cohesion, existence demanded to become or never to disappear. It could not be escaped and so we are literally inevitable, weird and peculiar as we are, yet as necessary as the atom, as light, as anything at all. It is this necessity which you may call "Now".

Empirical magnitudes of say touch, or sight. These are like curves on a graph, mathematically. It is not unusual to consider time to be base if this graph, instead it is emergent of the vector of all in conjunction, but the graphs are only a representation and not the nature of the "object" described. Time is not distributed over what it is emergent of, therefore "proper time" is an illusion, yet the hypothesis has metaphysical significance, the negation of this hypothesis can for instance further the argument of solipsism. Your "past" is a substantial memory, provability of emergence thereof require those memories to also be split into and then out of, you cant do that so therefore the best you can do is a computation of the mere theory. If time feels to be slowing down given the absence of empirical magnitudes, then it is justified to believe that time is emergent in part of them. if calculations and thinking speeds up the sense of time in proportion to some base (which again, is not itself tme) then that further justifies the emergence of time upon the "vector". There is no infinite regress here because the properties of empirical magnitudes changing all the time, and that the only relevance is the memory like five second ago. We may even justify the argument that impermanence or change exists at all because the opposite would contradict the question of why, as without the question neither any answer. A universal now is a contradiction, whatever is universal can not be emergent.

@Carl-Richard Statements, "x is y" has replaced "x is y if so and so", not primarily because of dogma, but often instead because of the opposite, that is; relativism. Disagreements arise also when everything is just a perspective, only now it is far harder to spot it when you do not even speak of the same thing. The antithetical nature of plurality of opinions that arise in say scientific communities grows into synthetic understanding, but here on this forum disagreements are not even antithetical to each other in relation to some objective standard of discourse, so it does not even become obvious what people are really thinking. It would aid us in a better direction to exclude the most practical threads from this conversation, this problem is and should be less prevalent in those. In trying to define words, though it is better than doing nothing, one assumes that the objective standard can be defined, understanding as I said is beyond definitions, and so one must establish a THEORY of sorts that is far beyond mere sum of words. I get that I am biased regarding the importance of theories, but that does not change the frequency of platitudes, assumptions, mere association, categorization and memorization that occur in this forum, none of these are bad on their own, I even engage in several of those in this very paragraph. I would also maintain that everything is consciousness, but I would be suspicious to if that means anything at all, expose hypothetical exceptions to it, question both if there really is any difference between the actual perceptions on a day to day basis between for instance idealists and physicalists and the opposite: whether there actually is much convergence between the meaning of the previous statement to you and to me at all, this invites theorization far deeper than the blanket statement in italic itself.

Intelligence, the most taboo subject, instead of considering how much of it one may have or lack, such as is so natural in these ages of statistics and measurement, I am instead interested in what it means for people that there are such a thing at all. These conclusions we draw effortlessly, that comprises nothing yet are typically referred back to as steps on some way, the sum of which are a mere analogy to the actual thought. I am naturally inclined to intersect all thoughts, converge everything unless a difference is absolutely necessary, make no assumptions or give no credibility to fantasy, but I have also begun seeing that there are dimensions to what the inner mind can do that are beyond its constructions of the world, my ultimate goal would be to create a map of thoughts that are pure fantasy on the one hand and purely conceptual on the other, the only requirement for this map is that neither has any applicability to how we create the world in any moment. I have a hard time explicating such concepts that are not essential to our creation of the world, but I can non the less experience them all the time and know the logic preconditioned to them though only associate this logic with it after the fact. I am speaking about concepts that are undivided, not categories of infinite elements such as the "concept" of pancakes or cars, even though these are also undivided identities considered without any of their content. For context, I argue that in a singular moment of consciousness such as now one may "contain" the concept "pi" without reference to that trough which it has any meaning, pi without its inherence to lines and circles is entirely undivided in that moment but in some set of a higher meaning in another moment, say then that you consider pi and the number of some circumference at the same time, is the thought now divided or not? I consider it the absolute essence of intelligence that NO POSSIBLE thought can be divided in presence, and that a perpetual synthesis of things is its (intelligence's) motion, that there forms an identity of the set of "pi" "value x" and "circumference" that itself is irreducible to such components, which non the less inheres to them, the proof of which can be considered as a new moment in which either of them "value x" or "circumference" were thought. The difference then between imagination and such pure concepts seems totally meaningless with regard to their nature alone, but what I can not take my eyes of any longer is that such pure concepts are a seeming output of some logical system that is absent in pure fantasy. We are forming millions of identities every day, some such are not essential to the creation of the very experience of "world", while others are totally necessary for the creation of that world WITHOUT us actually interacting with the world in the very moment such an identity were given us, there is as you should conclude some sort of finitism in what I speak of here, some scarcity or restriction that must be admitted for any of this to make sense.

My ears did not like that. Anyhow, what is going on, what did they who created these graphic designs try to do which they failed at or lied about? Without all the annoying commentary.

From what I can gather, you are very curious about many things, and a skeptic. I have no doubt about you succeeding in academia, you should likely take it very seriously and think, given your skepticism, a lot on your own. Nothing makes philosophy easier to consume than to ask the questions yourself, not doing so would be the equivalent of drawing shapes after you made the shadings, or learning calculus without actually considering its universal implications. To take university seriously can and should have after affects upon the other domains you question about.

@UnbornTao At least something he and Arthur agreed on.

Not only has life meaning, but it has intrinsic meaning. For in no other way could a billionth of humanity stand on its own feet in a singular moment, the nihilism comes in when the intrinsic meaning is given a name, and divided trough reason on all else. This precisely is what we have before us in the materialistic globalism, the instrumental value of oneself onto others constituting responsibility aided by the intrinsic value distributed over the same domain is given in these modern times an exponential curve. We have become instrumentally insignificant to those around us, and intrinsically insignificant to ourself, the answer is that we must get away from society at large, find a tribe or an apartment for our self alone (get back to the instrumental and intrinsic roots, 7/8%), adapt in contradiction to those roots (about 90% does this currently) or grow into an actual love for the whole system (2/3%). To adapt in contradiction to the roots of reciprocity (intrinsic/instrumental value) can make you Narcissistic, luxurious, success-driven, money grabbing, opinion consuming, overly attention seeking, news/sex/substance/porn/information addicted and not least develop eternally unsatisfied social cravings. To reiterate, the magnitude of humanity and I will add to that the magnitude of the universe trough science has made what we consider ourself insignificant in comparison, a rare but substantial way out of this is represented by the 2% that learn to love that which were previously considered beyond themselves, but is ultimately nothing but, and even this latter integration is possible.

I find it absurd to desire to be different than who one is, or to have been brought about differently, the worse circumstance in which one is found the more prone to this absurdity one is. But it must be ridiculously hellish the place to be for this absurdity to have no resolution, but you are not finding it unless you look for it. Why life and not death? This answer, following the rules prior is already apparent trough life as something that comprises all conceivable negations to the assertion (of life over death). Meaning that you may want to die, but even that affirms living, you may ought to die, but that affirms living as well. Death subsists in the living, to which no substantial opposite has ever been thought, and remain hypothetical and therefore empty. The hypothetical opposite, though lacking in all substance, should be presented, exposed, thought, defined, articulated, such that these endevours can ultimately be disjoined to what actually matters, who one can become, ones inner potential, highest desires or ambitions, deepest personal aesthetics, appreciations and possible goodness of the heart. Experience is not "better than death", not because it is worse, but because the assertion entails a contradiction, you simply have no idea about what you are thinking such to put either on the scale opposite of the other.

You want something, but you suppress this which you want by not owning the desire. You can speculate all you want, and even if you find a good answer for why you want what you want it is unlikely to make you want it any less, perhaps some decent psychoanalytic session with a professional could do just that though, by not merely finding the root cause intellectually but by feeling into it in the many ways this can be done. These emotions typically comes with a layer of acceptance of innocence. There is no better defense than innocence, I will add that even today women are often coerced not to desire, if so merely affection, it can be that you are wrestling with. But if you truly have the power to change the desire of attention, and it is your own judgement more so than cultural that it is 'wrong' then I would say it is sure to continue to haunt you, if you do nothing about it.

Well, despite what others have stated in this thread, an autocracy is not defined by a government under which freedom is absent. Only their lack of governmental freedom at primarily its highest rule. Anyway, yes autocracy can be a great thing, it can even be liberating. And when a highly conscious figure is of such power then it is a test of his character how little he gets corrupted, "power corrupts" won't cut it in a substantial argument, that would be to confuse the assertion for its category. Yet power do corrupt, give it fifty years as Leo said and now the chances are minuscule that the integrity remains, by the off chance one were once lucky. Democracy, for all its flaws and inefficiency, circumvents the problem of blind chance. Consider instead Technocracy, and its manifold variations, which country of western Europe would be the closest to harness the potential of such a revolutionary governmental philosophy? And is it at all in our nature to respect a position of authority the metric of which is dynamical, as opposed to static? Does it not confuse our very means of identification to be objective in our considerations, which surely is a prerequisite for the dynamical technocracy, as I would argue such a system though with regard to its implementations is non-democratic non the less survives on the good-will of its population. This indirect good-will, does it not require integral journalism more than anything for the objectivity to be held in it, by means of which the positions of authority in the system can grow in accordance to the very utility that is provided by the one operating it?

Many people here ponders extensively on how to make 'nothing' work for them, so consider yourself ahead of the curve.

ESFJ-T

Maybe she makes you laugh, maybe she makes you feel good for laughing when you say something that were funny, or not funny at all? Maybe she wore a dress the color of which you have always loved, maybe she were patient and awaited your late arrival or paid the check like a true gentle'wo'man? Perhaps she walked you home or avoided taking a picture when you poured the wine all over the food previously, on accident? Compliments so far as they are explicit statements do surely seldom lend themselves easily to reactions of the order above, but in the world of implication, the social world of interaction, compliments are all over the place, to apply these naive sets of what to do or not will not actually work well for you, instead there are good questions with meaningful qualifiers that can resemblance in a meaningful way an experience of another, such another such as me could then give you an answer of meaning if you weren't so lazy. I have no background in statistics, or probability, for the reasons above, but let us entertain the idea that a woman will 40% of the time be glad for 3 compliments on the first date, 20% for 5, 5% for 7, 1% for 9. Would this information actually help you in your decisions on that date, and what are you really asking if not for this precise probability distribution? I can tell you though that if there is not explicated nor implied a single compliment throughout the whole first date, then by pure speculation I judge the chance of a second date to approach zero, much like the utility of naive heuristics as commented above.

Give some general girl a general compliment from a general place of general fancy, in general? or Give some general girl a general compliment from a general place of general desperation, in general? ?? I do not use the word stupidity lightly, but these types of heuristics is stup..ifying? For it is heuristics you know, and a very poor one at that, naive heuristics of infinitesimal utility, the types of answers you get from such a question.

Well it is hard to be playfully self-deceptive. It is also hard to be playfully following the Ukraine war. I would argue it is harder to be in a playful relation to the magnitude of 8 billion people in an age of success or failure than in small tribes without constant comparison, constant growth vector, constant achievement, constant consumption. I think it is precisely so serious it is supposed to, one could say it is futile changing peoples behavior instead of the cause for it, but also that is an essential element of this whole scheme, at which point you may unintuitive as it is, become passive in the way you behave yourself in relation to it. You may see the whole system, despite your comprehension of its inner workings and therefore the power to affect it, as perfect as it is. and like a stoic just letting it be. To be assimilated into culture, into civilization is inherently traumatizing, any trip to the mall and all I see around me is Stockholm syndrome, every now and then I see a face lack such symptoms, of these some are truly playful. It is not that I see their trauma, but that I don't see it which makes me assert such a thing. Seriousness thus, I hypothesize is a symptom of but not reducible to subconscious subversion of the trauma of unapproved assimilation into what one grew to love, constituting ones identity.

However matter behaves at the outer layer of the universes expansion, it is not governed by some "wall", that would be to attribute properties to whatever of which the negative judgement of your mind is made of. It is not made of something, less so than any concept, it is there to aid any possible thinking. You do not affirm the assertion that there is something outside or at the boundary of the universe, you negate it. It is this simple, you can represent that of the universe in some way, but you cannot represent that outside it, for it has no content. So in relation to that which can be represented (a star, galaxy etc.) it is merely disjunctive, not even hypothetical, there is no such thing as hypothetical nothingness. At any point any human ever hypothesized there being nothing 'outside' the universe they assumed an outsideness to it, and ventured into an absurd undertaking whereby some nature of 'outside' and 'nothing' rests on each other in some cosmological domain. So indeed, there is an infinite regress as Carl Richard said, but what that really means is absurdity, engaging in paradox. But paradox is sloppy thinking.

The the most valuable part of this show is a study of their rhetoric, how weird, annoying and original it is. As others said: Emotional, Reactive, Prideful, Superiority complexes, Judgmental. Well I really cant stand it, I must conclude there are things I don't get.

I hope to live. Ten years, is it possible to think of those without romantisizing them? I will try not to, there are no ten years except the next ones that requires the most effort, I should have changed substantially by then, it would be defeat and a rot to not "become who one is" and if ten years are inadequate to that end then who one is is never to become. They say one must not 'live in the past', I say it is worse to live in the future, for it relates to our responsibilities what stocks are in an economy. Owed.