Reciprocality

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.

?

amazing

not bad, I will redirect you to my post another faulty assumption, Ive taken a few tests

It is one thing to be wrong in ones conclusions, or ones theory, but totally another to misrepresent the possibility space of theories. The reason it is not implied that there must be an intelligent designer on the evidence of fine tuning is that the opposite (non fine tuning) does not imply the opposite (unintelligent design non intelligent design), you have merely associated things with each other. Consider this, It is very possible that the universe has no beginning and cycles, or that there is instead a million million million of them, both these scenarios undermines the intelligence behind our unlikely universe.

You have no idea what you talk about.

@thisintegrated No, instead one call it similar when it is identified as the same type, which is rather different and also fine. But that does not mean there is any convergence going on, that you believe so is a curious assumption that you project into the model for it to feel valid. It is precisely that two people can think they converge by means of categories that they are confused and which makes the work required to deconstruct the confusion exponential than without it. Personality is not an intellectual construction (though it representation is), therefore it is impossible for the meaning of the 16 to be different from ones own manifold of potential, out of this manifold are everyone else created, and in disjunctive relation to others will some inner potential be carved from the manifold. The 16 are a fine metaphor for this manifold, but no two 16 converges, not in personality and I would argue even in theory. It is impossible for two say INTPs to converge in personality, though they can seem similar based on coinciding references in a finite/scarce world, giving rise to under determined categories, for they are carved out of infinitely different potentials. No I don't seem that way, and the P is correct, I even put it in thick so you would not bring about faulty assumptions, that you did so kind of implies my whole point. It is not, but is is one of the most important relations between thoughts, it is just far from adequate on its own, and a pure logic, which also is meaningless on its own. "The core" is also ambiguous, and itself a mere category that reveals little thought, though that is not the main point.

I literally said the opposite. That is correct, as I said, it is fine tuned. And again, nothing beyond it is required. Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, you are projecting yourself into your own ideas and then you make a distinction between the self you project and the self you do not, but this is a dogmatic distinction. Most atheists would not call me atheist, I do not consider the dichotomy useful in categorizing my understanding of existence. You have to be far more particular, and give an intelligible theory on something, to which I may be atheistic, but prior to this we are putting the cart in front of the horse.

The universe may be fine tuned for life, but give existence 1000 000 000 000 cycles to run trough and there you have it, humans. Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, instead you are the designer of a system that happens to be precisely such that you could design it, the extra dimensional god is an absurd notion. A projection of oneself into sub systems in oneself. We are made by brute force, we are the result of infinite possibilities, we are inevitable, the designer is a hoax unless it is intelligence itself as it renders time by intuition/synthesis.

I would only confront my equal or someone close, if you have high standards it does not matter if they beneath it ridicule you. You do not have to be like that, if you want to give stupidity your time of the day, and this actually affects you, then confront them with their monkey business, what you may find is that they can not compute your confrontation, why would they behave like they did if a mere confrontation could make them introspect on the spot? In my weird mind it would actually make me question my confrontation if they had the character to do that.

It is a good thing that there are disabled, they are instrumental to a deeper capacity for non-disabled to nurture. As it is good that there are maniacs, fat people, stupid people, slutty people, dishonest people, accidents, Kardashians and hurricanes, we feed off of them, we live in the best of all possible worlds, do we not? Happiness is made for the average Joe, the average Joe were the teleological cause for us all to become, for something rather than nothing. Let us do like god, let the downs syndrome's live, or put in the blank.

@Preety_India I have practiced writing to myself extensively for over three years, I could never dream of understanding my own thinking as well as now, by means of reading it say 2 months after writing it. My feelings is a whole different conundrum, the best I can do in this domain are analogies, x is during anxiety what a canoe is on sea. Authenticity during a social gatherings are like sand castles under tides. Good ambiance and traffic rarely combines well. I do not know if this is gonna fly, but I hope you get the point, for feelings to be expressed well there are totally different rules to follow, it may involve logic as in my analogies, though it is a complex form of logic that requires one to relate experientally as well.

Then we would be the last generation, so yes.

Will the quality of your writing be directly proportional to income? If not then you have freedom to be more original, is it the absurdity or originality of your thinking which makes you feel inadequate to writing as a career? Perhaps it is rhetoric that you struggle with, how much of your self are you willing to chime of in order to meet standardized norms? When I make myself understood then all the substance of my thinking is gone, would you be happy regurgitating the bare minimum for others pleasure, or would that be too shallow? There are millions of various classes of audiences, is it possible that the struggle you have with writing reflects of the very people you interact with more than the writing itself? I am not diagnosed autistic, but if I assume the meaning of such a spectrum then I am definitely on there, and will only say that you have to know your audience, the quality of your writing has nothing to do with the closest people nearby, unless we speak grammar and syntax issues.

You say you are honest, but you identify with the part of you which says lofty words and not the part which fails on actualizing them? Perhaps I am wrong in this characterization, but then what you really want is not what you think, but instead mediocrity, or indeed whatever you already are. I say to myself that I want to go running, but then I don't go running, I realize that I don't actually want to go running, given the evidence. We think in this time and age that we can be what we say we are, this relates to how we think in terms of social identity, if we can fool someone else then we have become in their mind who we want to be without effort. Why else would we end up fooling ourself on our inner motivations?