Reciprocality

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.

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.