Reciprocality

@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.

My answer is that this feeling of the universe giving exactly the information required is because it actually does, because we are analyzing what is required for this evolution after the fact. That is, we are necessarily given the precise information to further our particular evolution. Then I reflect and say that we believe the past created us because we are trapped in a place in which the memories are subsistent essentials to who we became, I provided definitions above. "this is the reason we identify with who we were in our representation of the past in memory. " The innermost emptiness of us, which one may realize trough meditation is dual to our memories of that we naturally represent as of the past, we would not identify with it if this emptiness did not relate to it the way it relates to our face, voice, constructs etc. To some people that are very awake this relation is more convergent. That it is a represented as of the past in memory is not necessary, that is right, but it relates to other parts of the conversation, and puts things in a coherent whole. There may be something else that you are thinking of when you speak of synchronicity, that I can not decide for you.

@Michael Jackson Well sure you don't, would not be fun if someone showed you that your judgement that reality is best described with a different word than reality is kind of dubious. A less academic version to show you this is that reality is there, and then one invent a word to reference it in language such that other knows what is pointed towards, in which case it totally absurds away from what is pointed towards if it is referenced by something that to many is totally different to it. To anyone who do not already agree that what is pointed towards is god it does not contribute to the theory of god nor reality to equate them. And so you are at best telling a bunch of people that you already agree with that "from now on my good sirs let us call the real apple for a god-apple", because instead of providing a story, and insight, a sentiment an experience or a logical conclusion of thought you tell other people that "this is this". Your real problem is that all this stands whether god is reality or not, for if it really is then the distinction must be deconstructed and not equivocated, for people to agree with the proposition that did not already find god in everything. Though I guess that is very far from your intention. And so a good question is then: what is the difference between the thinking of someone who knows god and knows reality is god and announces that god is the convergent best description of what in the relative sense is completely divergent and the thinking of someone who take no such stance even though they know that the two objects described are ultimately the same.

@Galyna I am almost giving half my best here, so do not be angered if you do not get where I am going, if you get pieces here and there that is all I would expect, and if you do not want to respond to it that is fine. Well yes, the problem is that many who says what you just said think that things are disjoined in themselves and then connected in some cosmological mind trough pure speculation, instead everything is phenomenally singular first (substance) and then divided into discrete elements in intelligence to then be combined into a philosophic architecture constituting a belief system. All this inheres in the ultimate substance of empty awareness, to which the ego is an essence and empirical magnitudes, imagined magnitudes, thoughts.. all accidents. How can x diverge from itself without being imposed by something y outside it? The only way is if x is both the absolute, a necessity and of a will. That is, a will which can not take itself away but only change itself according to rules which does not take itself away, if it is not a will that potentiates then everything must have finished to completion by already being actual, prior to potential. In intelligence everything is first actual G then it is considered potential t because actual T followed it. So how come one may allow a theory of a potential which seems to be prior to what is actual such as a will? The answer is that metatime does not follow the rules of time, that metatime is a four(?) dimensional entity such that a will can be allowed to potentiate it without being prior to it but with it. Our only problem with this argument is that the nature of our own will is imposed on that which is hypothesized as beyond it, so if the argument stands then we are demigods, as in essential and subsistent to the power of god. So how can we in our totality be subsistent elements of our intelligence which is less than us in total, which this argument entails, the answer is if and only if there is such a thing which can never be incorporated by us, which is independent of us, yet non the less is represented by us in our very thinking. Substance: Everything without reflection, that which is both something and present without being divided, but not a pure mathematical construct which also is undivided. Subsistence/Inherence: Something (x) of X or an element of a particular substance, it is either accidental or essential to the substance, though it is nothing without the substance to which it is either or. That in cursive is what makes it subsistence and not merely an element. Essence: That without which a substance loses all meaning. Element: that which can either be accidental or essential to a given substance whether or not it is subsistent to it. Emptiness: that in which the magnitude of a substance may go in or out of consciousness, which still is conscious. Independent: That which is regardless of a given consciousness, in some hypothetical reality, that which due to its hypothetical nature in intelligence is not at all to the solipsist. Will: That which alters or creates causation in presence in some direction that is considered the future to beings of sensible time. Future: That which is anticipated as a continuum of various magnitudes, which at presence it always mystical. Intelligence: That which mystically creates synthetic identity out of what is retrospectively considered discrete/analytic disjunctive elements/objects. (synthetic a priori) Disjuncton: A relation between x and y such that x can be though of in some opposition to y. Metatime: An absolute entity composed of linearity in a manifold of time frames and therefore beyond linearity itself. Actual: Well this is the only term I have used ambiguously that I also will continue to use ambiguously, that which is actual may both denote that something is present at all and also a present memory in particular which relates to another present memory that is considered its potential, in the way they are combined as causal, even though they are not causal at present at all Potential: The element of analysis which came by means of something else that were actual, that which were potential is the contingency itself of the one on the other. Contingency: Another modality of Potentiality and Accident. That which is contingent on something necessary. Necessity: Another modality of Actuality and Essence. That which is necessary to which something else is contingent. Modality: the way in which something is, the something which is in a certain way is essential to a certain perspective, often in a rhetorical point.

@Galyna We think that it created us because we can impose our pure empty awareness into memories of our past, this is the reason we identify with who we were in our representation of the past in memory. The idea that we were created prior to our presence (now) is not made merely out of the parts which comprises this idea at presence, if that composition of elements were enough then we could push ourself back to some initial condition out of which we were created, to return at will at any moment. That these elements are not enough to create us does not mean they were not essential for us to be created, we are retrospectively analyzing the idea of our house, our family, our friends, (the empirical condition for these things, touch, smell, sight) our sensibility of shape, space etc. In doing this we see subsistent and essential elements of our existence, without these we would not be at this place we are now with these extremely peculiar characteristics, it feels like we are precisely were we are supposed to be because its disjunction or alternative to being where we are is synthetic or additive by means of it. This creation does not imply time, instead time is essential to the idea of the creation, the implication goes the other way around. Time is necessarily implicated in consciousness, as is space. I am not saying that we are in any way seeing how we were created, but we are analyzing its ingredients. We are capable of saying what our creation must necessarily have, without saying how it is done. I do not think it makes sense to conclude regarding how we are created for the same reason we do not know what it is like (or what it means) to be independent of us, such as materialists considers a stone to be independent of us or theists considers god to be independent of us. I do not think there has been an absolute creation if you were asking that, for I consider nothingness to be impossible (this I actually know) and emptiness to be a mutual contingency to whatever fills it.

What do you expect finding contextualizing evil that you do not find in what you call evil? Why do you expect to find the essence of evil disjunctively? Why is it not in your evil intentions themselves that you learn what it is? Why is it not in the emergence itself of opposites that it naturally forms? Why make a mystery out of it? It is impossible to not discover evil trough honesty.

@Julian gabriel An answer to this question implies making reality a different way. Well the question itself implies this. And so in which direction can you make reality such that it answer itself? Now this is futile surely, recursive, for you have then something new to question which non the less is pretty much the same. The question is the output, it simply will not be both the input and resolute unlike most questions given an answer. If you accept that consciousness is emergent of a mystical entity that non the less necessitates it to which everything is a proof, then the question is retrospectively considered a confusion. "Why is it precisely here, in this body at this time that I am" is a question many people who discover their essential emptiness wrestle with, the answer is that the question is emergent of it, that the question tries to escape what it considers a prison but is instead its ultimate and only potential. A better way to say it is that you imagine that you could potentially be something else, and therefore desire an answer for why you ended up limited to a singular consciousness. Well I am here to tell you that it is absurd to give imagination such a power. Edit: it is not absurd to imagine anything, but it is absurd to give questions any validity based on it alone, that is expecting to get an answer that does not include its own negation when the predicate of the question is an infinite range of fantasy. It does not stem any less from confusion a question that contains magnitudes of awe, and it takes extreme effort to translate awe to a good question. Many geniuses have lived their whole life incapable of perfecting this art.

Amazing.

To what is evil instrumental? For something to know itself. Something knowing itself trough no evil is like a tree growing without the wind or a baby dying in the womb. Not only would there not be a story to tell without evil, but there would neither be someone there to tell it. An essential attribute of consciousness, an existential matter.

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” ― David Hume Inaccurate by my Scottish favorite, I would say though that instead reason is always a slave of emotions, but not only. "In symbols one observes an advantage in discovery which is greatest when they express the exact nature of a thing briefly and, as it were, picture it; then indeed the labor of thought is wonderfully diminished." ― Leibniz It is ridiculous the way expressions (symbols, words) are never quite accurate, yet super efficient in a given moment in which you impose on them their perfect context. The downside is that trough time this may enforce undue self-criticism.

Teleology is a backwards causation theory for many, typically indicating intelligent design (a tree were once made so it could serve a purpose in making books, stones are made for humans to throw, the foot is made for sandals), to me it is mere meta-cognition, the understanding that the universe could never have been if it had no direction, that the universe as idea is an effect of some mystical direction. Or that something is pulling us as much as objects in intelligence seems to have pushed us, like the sun or big bang. So how does this relate to your post? Everything in your evolution necessitates where you end up, analyzing your prior direction adds up to where you have become.

We are progressing towards the future by synthesizing the information which we reduce or compartmentalize retrospectively when that has become the past. Synchronicity is a feeling we have when analyzing something which once created us. Or is taken out of that which has created us. Do you see how the output of prior synthesis is necessarily such that it feeling like we "are getting precisely the block of information we need"? You are speaking about teleology, many more should.

It is impossible to describe something non-conceptually, reality is there without revelations of god, to describe something ultimately or "in a best way" is a conceptualization of the essence of something, the best way to describe reality is necessarily not to the exclusion of those without such revelation, and god as concept is therefore not the ultimate or best way to describe reality. So at best "god" is more an exposition of a possible experience in reality. I guess this were somehow a word salad for many, and so to make it simple: you are unaware of god (and all else) without reality, but many are aware of reality without awareness of god. therefore god is at best subsistent to reality. If you were to say that god is a description of sentience in reality, will in reality, dual to reality or beyond reality etc then that could at least amount to something, though it would require some thinking and not just equivocation.

It really blows my mind that you would go to a forum of people with anti-cultural values and then measuring them by how little they perform by the standards of general cultural values, without even providing reason or evidence to why this general culture is better, that is a dimensional leap of folly. Though I agree on one remark, they are pretty annoying.

I mean you could say that everyone think they are fighting Darth Vader or Mewtwo and considers themselves to be on the team of Jedi or Pikachu. That everyone needs an enemy to fight, it is both true and understandable for a five year old, win win. I guess you also have to reassure that grandpa is no villain regardless.

You somehow realize that beliefs are always though in various ways empty, that they are a minimal effort of survival. That pretty much nothing is the way it seems, and ultimately in no particular way at all, therefore. That equations are equivocations, and that substance/attribute theory is the closest you get to a consistent meta-model of mind, that instead of adding things together you subtract things from necessary unity, such that instead of saying 0.5+0.5=1 you end up only saying that without a whole there are no halves, and that everything of consciousness (say a duck) is thereby a fraction of it, and that without the duck there would non the less be something whole. To say that the duck is an accident of what it inheres in, or to which it is subsistent. You also realize that thoughts subsist, even though they are synthetic and pure imagination. Synthetic subsistence implies consciousness as an absolute, and so to what you are asking I answer that the ultimate goal of mind is to find the essential subsistent attributes of the substance consciousness, if you can. Time, Space, Causality, Empirical intuition, Will and Pure analytic mathematics/logic seems all to be THE essence of consciousness, none of which are mere representations of it but actually it. The best theory on how these essential ingredients are combined will also be the best way trough which to think, though it must always be understood that we retrospectively combine them imperfectly, and are therefore building a philosophical architecture instead of speaking absolute truth. This combination is a representation of something mystical, this architecture is a representation of something beyond ourself, I think. I also think that this rationalism is a cosmological and absolute necessity, an essence of existence itself. This which is beyond ourself are typically recognized by various people and doctrines from Purple to Turquoise as God, Synthetic A Priori, Subconscious, Nothingness, Oblivion, Death, Unconscious, Materiality, Truth, Heaven, The thing in itself, "contents" of intuition, Noumena, absolute will or "something from nothing". Edit: And by the skeptics in general this which is beyond ourself are recognized as a manifold of imagined material possibility, how they go about projecting themselves into the world they are supposedly skeptical of as a foundation for its possibilities is the biggest hoax and I would argue the most extreme case of mental gymnastics recorded in history. Don't be a skeptic, though learn everything you can from them.

Then I would re invent half the old laws.

Given that something takes the form it needs to since nothing more than necessary takes form. And that every form takes a certain direction and that direction is defined by the form. How then can necessary forms be accidents to the ultimate direction, if not by a will that is dual to them both? And so without no will neither comes intention, to which then we would be a necessary accident, so then we are an extreme kind of absolute being. So then our lives are an end in itself and this actually all there will be to us. So then there is an emptiness lacking in the cosmological scale we are every day ruining by at all being, and so my existential question then is regarding this to which we are an opposite and seemingly emergent of: what is it in itself and what is the absolute variation of things that can become its opposite, and so regarding these how alone are we in our universe? It really should not be possible that we are at all, given this I take it that there will always be something and that what seems like nothingness is actually a positive notion, a negation on top of a thing. Well then the will is emergent and imposed in its power by that which it is emergent of so to be by some plain love radically reduced in its power to do harm, and so then of what else than perfection are we? Extreme diversity, minimal effort.

Nothing is complete bullshit, or rather, complete bullshit has no appearance and is merely an empty hypothesis. Humans make two kinds of connections, either it is particular or universal. To claim that astrology is complete bullshit is to claim that a particular connection is a universal non-connection and somehow therefore also a particular non-connection. But if I claim that my month of conception correlates with strawberry eating on Tuesdays then I have made a connection necessarily, and so it can not be complete bullshit. The problem we have is that we think that if something is not universable then it is bullshit, when the precise opposite is the truth, which does not make universals invalid. It is because it is not universally valid (that people born in October eats more strawberry on Tuesdays than everyone not born in October) that the particular connection once drawn is valid, valid in particular, it is even valid in particular when it is delusional in general. People are not capable to distinguish between universal and particular for the same reason they think the world revolves around them, that luck will come in their favor, that coincidence implies higher meaning/gods will/repetition or that correlation means causation. It is impossible to make a connected non-connection, therefore no connections are complete bullshit, in fact the more particular a connection is the smarter one must be to identify likely reasons for it, the more variables there will be on the way there and ultimately the more you would be forgiven for considering it total nonsense. Delusion is an intricate melody of logical composition, paradox is the love for its repetition.

"What is happening right now, like what is this exact fucking moment? it is LITERALLY there. RIGHT NOW! THIS!?" This question from your original post assumes that universal existence can be equated with something in essential and particular in it, it is a from of absurd essententialism. "Why isn't nothing possible ? Why would there be stuff ..?Why do you think the existence of something is necessary?" I do not think that something must necessarily exist, I know. If something can be at all that means it can not be taken away, for if it could be taken away then it could also never have been. Your problem is that you think that everything beyond presence is nothingness, and that nothingness is potentially something, that existence can negate itself every time a second goes by. Instead, again, you invent the idea of negation after first having been imposed by something, this imposition and your essential nature of emptiness are equal to the other. You can consider them to be mutually generative. This emptiness does not negate the things that occurs by means of it and with it, obviously. That we are wondering how it is all possible can be satisfied (even though your formulation of the question makes little sense), but that does not change the proclivity for wonder itself, and so now I ask why everything is the way it is and not merely why it is at all. It is here that one encounter self reference problems, any honesty here implies a teleological theory. You end up asking not only "why am I the way I am" but rather "why is what I am precisely the way it had to be". At this point you may discover determinism, which is a perfect theory when you are limited by one linearity and are only thinking retrospectively. But you will also discover that the future is always mystical in its direction, that everything is both similar and different, and that only will is of the nature that could imply altercation. Here you see that the will is only a consistent theory in a given time frame if it is ANTICIPATED for the future, and never reduced into a theory of what were already existent or of the memories of the past, and that the only way one could have both determinism and will is in an infinite manifold of universes of which oneself is merely singular. The synthesis says that one goes trough this infinite manifold every day, and that everything which preceded therefore were totally determined. What were once a contradiction becomes the very glue itself. All this is implied and almost self argued by taking the idea of the will seriously.

Causation is necessary and everywhere in/by us. Causation is a sensibility. It is therefore by means of causation (subsistent to it) that we create an idea of independent causation, this idea is empty of its object. The idea that an independent universe has a first cause is an empty idea for this reason, as in pure speculation. It is pure projection, something must not at all precede something else in some independent timespace, instead infinity and its expressions end up reasoning that something can at all be independent of something else. And if something were truly independent of our consciousness then why would it correspond with anything in that which it is independent of? The answer here is typically god.

@Someone here Infinite regress is only a meaningful idea when you assume nothing to be a possibility. Actuality therefore proves infinite regression to be impossible. There does not have to be a first cause if there is anything at all, first something is actual and then potentiality inheres in what is actual, You mention Aristotle, well this is an idea by him.