Reciprocality

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.

Lol

Boundary between things. AI: nope Edit: The most creative of artists cant unimagine metaphorical identities while somehow maintaining structural cohesion like these AI does, they would have to actually try to make those metaphores without being able to in the first place. What you will see again and again is that when humans try to do that they depict a multitude of things that are already something, a multiplication the sum of which obscures preconceived metaphors, the AI however, in trying to create something cohesive out of elements it does not understand has the unique ability to make totally new metaphors, well so far as they who watch their art do not merely accept the minimal resemblance to something at first sight; in which case, in a mere subjective sense, the AI have succeeded.

That something can at all be for nothingness never to become as a rational realization followed by the human desire for reducible singular substance in finite causality such for nothingness to be eternal prior to it, this however, is the absurdity of life. To never accept the above due to the constant proclivity of intuition and the identities of imagination which follows, that a synthetic answer for why there is something rather than nothing is impossible, to not accept this such as in the state I find myself over and over, that is, if anything, the actual "absurd". If Camus truly meant this, which I have a faint feeling he might've then he did not write the books he should've.

Camus and Sartres' absurdism assumes that the absurdity lies in our capacity to, despite desiring otherwise, not finding meaning in the world itself. They assume that it is themselves in relation to it which is absurd, but that is wrong. What is truly absurd is 'prior' to that even, the absurdity that we can imagine something and justify conclusively to ourself the inherence of this something to whatever it is not in presence. In other words, the logical absurdity is Camus ability to imagine that there is such a thing which could possibly be different than his desire of it to be. He concludes with life-force being absurd in its contradiction to what has no such force, in reality though there actually only is self-contained opposition, Camus were wrestling with himself on absurd premises, this though inadequately so he exposed in the Myth of Sisyphus. That we are born incapable of dividing without thought, and that non the less something is of us such that plurality appears without thought, is were he got lost. This plurality is apprehension, unawaringly so Camus absurdity hinges on the plurality of apprehension being explicable (as a metaphysical materialism, it is indeed absurd though to require such a thing when it is precisely its vail that absurds). Edit. It is like a paradox, it is there if and only if you impose you imagination on whatever preceded and desire simultaneously to square them, like a baby wanting to rule.

There is obviously only one conclusion to the latter points, namely that teleology inheres to dualism. Not Cartesian or material dualism in particular, but Kantian and to be sure Human dualism in absolute general. Whatever upon which our particular form of being hinges, it were necessarily there for us to become, and so even though material causation is justified in attributing priority or foundation to whatever precedes something else it still is no more fundamental to what is emergent of it. The question of why one are at all emergent out of what requires it to be asked, the answer will always and only go meta on itself and are the very proof of irreducible existence. @ll Ontology ll Are we getting anywhere?

Nothingness is an empty representation of what may be divided in 'something'. Every 'something' is itself indivisible. There are at all anything plural. Plurality is only of unity. Therefore growth, as a means for plurality as multiplicity (or just multiplicity) is inherent to every 'something', this is an actual equation for god, it can be better stated. Multiplicity inheres to whatever is undivided and actual, as its potential. Nothingness then is merely our capacity to identify the nature of multiplicity without also rendering anything particular by means of this capacity, and itself ultimately indivisible. Everything is also always an empty representation of itself, some moment may contain both a non-empty particular and a empty universal representation, or it may contain a non empty particular representation of something subsistent to itself as memory, which by being itself indivisible yet plural implies at that time universal emptiness or what we may represent now as nothingness. What is here referred to differs to what is said conceptually, you do not have to fabricate some thought to get it, you are merely aware of how nothingness by being indivisible is never what is typically referred to as nothing but itself substantial. This is mostly an exposition of why many mystics says that experience is actually just nothing, and how the typical idea of nothingness as some possible opposition to 'being' is meaningless, not meaningless in that it can not produce meaning, but meaningless in that this representation does not mean what it is alleged to mean, in reality it means "anything to no exclusion" or "everything in unity". Thought presuppose/necessitates distinction, nothingness has no distinction and opposition hinges on distinction, therefore the idea of opposition as the predicate for nothing is absurd, which also means that nothingness as a synthetic judgement is absurd. Nothingness then has plurality without distinction, it can thus be justified as that out of which intuition of cognition is made phenomenally, which of course means that it is not made phenomenally, which then implies that something has made yout intuitions that is independent of you, if they are made at all. This something which has made your intuitions (if they are at all made) I conclude with necessarily having to constitute cosmological/ontological/absolute/existential growth, going back to the equation of god. If however they (intuitions) are not made at all then the original premises of the first paragraph must necessarily be false.

Nihilism then, for it to be true in its ultimate and only meaningful form requires plurality to be equally ultimately divided, which is a funny way to conclude with how materialism leads to nihilism. If consciousness is believed to be emergent out of mere parts then reason will from there necessarily lead to nihilism, that nothingness as the disappearance of emergence is its necessary conclusion, to say that something in accordance to it must remain when itself disappears. The problem is that the parts out of which consciousness is allegedly emergent of are undivided magnitudes in consciousness, consciousness in 'being at all' or 'being in the first place' proves its eternity/infinity, for any negation of the proposition that consciousness emerges predicates it.

Instead of loosy goosy defining what a human is you may try instead to think trough that in terms of which an experience or an emotion is owed a representation, such that it under the head of "human" constitutes some substance. You may find that even though definitions are a bare minimum for many conversations such as these they really comes back to bite you in the end, that is if even so much as hypothetical consensus is to be established. If you can not even establish that there is something of a possible experience 'out there' which is different from its inherence/subsistence in you (typically considered a material or independent world, though irreducible to either/both, it may be stated otherwise as an absolute, or at the very least an object for seeming convergence between the two subjects), then it which constitutes the matter of discourse inheres instead to you alone. From this it follows that a hypothetical consensus would be impossible, and that instead whatever is exposed in an actual experience in you is that which another must be ruled by for an actual consensus, this then by 1. its absurd nature is unlikely and meaningless and 2. by its tyrannical nature fruitless. So you may define a human as something which breaths and thinks or which suffers and enjoys, and that a true human does some or all these now or tomorrow, this may help you to get started but hardly ever helps your thinking, it is likely instead to frame the world in terms of ways you are now experiencing it trough, from where an incapacity to analyse the world and especially its accidents ensues. You began thereby what were an honest inquiry into oughts and shoulds and ended up defending a premature definition by which thinking were made efficient, and to which a whole range of diverging phenomenons are beholden despotically or dogmatically. Instead subject x and y are better of 1. exposing possible experiences of the world, 2. thinking trough their likely consequences, 3. establishing a general theory of when something is better judged in terms of it's intrinsic value and 4. when it is better judged in terms of its instrumental value. And lastly procedure 5. by which you theorize as well to whether information of the substantial world in relation to that in it which were exposed may or may not render the exposed obsolete after the fact. Then and only then, by the substance to which a definition has meaning to you and hypothetical consensus with another are you on minimal grounds to contribute with a definition, well to my standards anyways on ethical matters. I have some controversial stances on abortions so far as I allow myself to have a general stance at all, though if someone find the almost scientific means to consensus-making above intriguing or valuable then I may be happy to respond on the actual matter of it as well, but until then I will steer clear of its efforts.

@EmptyInside Cool, no I do not think so, I will check it out later Yes Bach is quite the gem.

@Hardkill Are you scared of him? And if not, what does his death serve you?

The amount of validity you have to project onto you fantasies to give Pascal's Wager any meaning is beyond the scale.

Have you ever wondered how it will be like, one day, to lie there ready and welcoming with no pretending, thinking to yourself that there is nothing more of you worthwhile to give it a minute more? That there would be nothing to say and that it always had to be this way, that at that point, for the first time nothing about yourself would be at all significant, that whatever is ultimately significant has nothing more of you to feed on?

@Yarco Haha, I guess that would in some sense be the braver way to end it, to really feel into the emotions, to be scared of the unknown. I would consider that an acceptance.

Perhaps the last thing you Americans need now is for half the population to watch their Supreme Leader become their generations biggest Martyr.. ..in their eyes? ,,,just maybe?

It may be helpful to think about what kinds of things have necessary proportion and what kinds of things does not. Without including in this calculation that everything is ultimately proportionate in some dynamic and only interconnected way. The reason that some things are relatively inproportionate yet of absolute proportion and other things are both of relative proportion and absolute proportion has to do with the ability to create units of measurement. To do this you have to spontaneously identify something as indivisible, this is what intelligence does, all humans do this but only some are aware that they do. That which itself is indivisible yet potentially divided is also that of which every piece together is equal. The proportion then of heart and head, 0.3 and 0.7, the value of gold and the quantity of gold, distance and time, matter and energy are all of some commonality that coffee and purple, radiator and handle, political power and goodwill are not. Well, now we are going back to the unit of measurement, it may be better to measure political power by goodwill than to measure it by purple clothes, but the proportion is irreducible to the two things only, such that the unit of measurement will actually exceed either together. So then is evil proportionate to consequences like gold is proportionate in value to quantity? It is, but only in the categorical range of possible consequences, it is not however proportionate in magnitude to the magnitude of negative consequences, for if it were then it would be impossible for Hitler merely to die. The question therefore from here, is how predictable the proclivity for evil is to the kinds of consequences that you consider negative, this becomes very scientific even though I would agree that it is reasonable to hypothesize that in general the negativity does come in some return.

@puporing @Galyna Meditations have teached me that the ego is a deception, this emptiness which the ego fills up I consider to be forever, to be a necessary substance of existence. I am not speaking about that, I am speaking about the ego to which death is only absolute when that which once were identified by means of it is no longer there. This ego is what dies, and what is let loose and not anymore of any significance at last. Death is our representation of the experience of emptiness, what is death in your mind that makes it different to this emptiness if all that you love and care for has no more form? It is ridiculously vague to say that one lives forever if one has both experienced this emptiness and understand that the ego is what people typically refer to when they wish to live forever.

You get a bunch of misfits doing as adults what they once did not dare to do in class.

Your suffering will end, try some Bach meanwhile.

@Galyna I consider memories themselves to be lesser magnitudes of what once were higher magnitudes, that are typically initiated by emotion and which often follows emotions when brought about by thoughts. That they were once higher magnitudes of a posteriori experience is of course itself a synthetic thought, thus imagined, because sensible time by which it is rendered is fractured into a concept that is imposed on it. Thoughts I consider to be either synthetic of everything which is not a thought, or analytic as pure concept, pure concept is almost always translatable to mathematics as we remember it or mathematics itself as we determine it. A non mathematical pure concept may be the synthesis itself in general, and not any synthesis in particular, or modality, or logic or categories in general.

@Inliytened1 Cool, though I wish that I could consider that an intrinsic good.

Well no, you may need a lot of weird stuff if you are enlightened, and you may indeed need to tell people that also are enlightened that god is reality, and you may need to enjoy that you told them so. You may also need to tell people that are non-enlightened that the most accurate way to describe their reality is god. Though it may be wise not to walk around calling everything the same thing even if ones consciousness equals a billion, for the simple reason that in the operational, relative, intelligent world differences between are maintained so that one lives to see tomorrow as well. I am saying that instead it would be far better to provide some theory on why god and reality is the same thing, what I would refer to as thinking, which is not easy, but may actually make someone relate to their experiences, this would be substantial and not surface level circle jerk, but then again perhaps this circle is precisely the right approach in ways I can not understand.

@Someone here Well the point of communication is first to think and then to say something that is thought, I am in this awful habit of actually thinking and actually saying what is thought. By the off-chance that someone understand what is thought I may communicate thereby, but in between I am mainly thinking. I am the least ambiguous I am aware of on this forum, and so that this is the word you would use to describe me kind of indicates the magnitude of the problem we would deal with in trying to communicate, an ambiguous pedant stretches my imagination of possible combinations, got me there. Though it is right that there are variables in my expressions, when they are not considered carefully in their precise place one can get lost, myself included. I compress a lot, this is a problem for communication, I have never lived in a English speaking country, I am sure there are rhetorical methods I have missed out on in part for this reason. Most people (yeah like >99%) want to feel their way, associate their way into some place of social cohesion, acceptance or aesthetic even. I don't, and so this alone creates a dimensional barrier, I am sure you can see why.

@Galyna Well it is not, the means by which we represent them are constructs, but they are definitely not constructs themselves. I have argued this extensively in a post titled "most things are imagined". There are things that may come and go when other things remains, and are also a combination of various things taken into one identity, only such things I call constructs. Not only is both Time and Space there always when something else in particular, say a sound, touch or a thought is had but there latter things are contingent on the former. Time and Space is of the mind, and ever present given the presence of something particular in mind, these are often called appearances. We who are conscious are not seeing how we are created, necessarily, for then nothing could take in its output. I am sure this will not be accepted easily, but it is obvious. If we could see that we were created then we would be whatever created us, or whatever of which we are composed, if we are at all created and if we are at all composed. Nothingness is a construct however, and this construct is definitely important for anything to make sense. It has a better term, "negation". It is not actually nothing, instead it is the imagination of a thing and the unimaginative of the same thing, which is what negation means. You may also argue retrospectively that nothing is the absence of an appearance or a magnitude in consciousness, but this is what I call emptiness and actually not at all nothing.