Reciprocality

@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.

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.

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.