Reciprocality

No, that is futile. That is a mere question without possible answer. I consider everything of such nature pompous, I hate it with a passion and it seems to be the death of serious philosophy wherever it travels. I should add that all such questions without possible answers are necessarily either badly stated or the answer is in the question itself, for it is impossible to wonder at something stupidly.

@A Fellow Lighter The idea of the empirical intuition is also always itself empty, we seem to agree here. We create identities synthetically a priori out of the analytic a posteriori empirical intuitions. The only way we can do this is if these empirical intuitions comes with a preconditioned map. We are extremely poor of discerning between pure concepts that are analytic a priori and the identities we have made by means of their imposition on the empirical. The capacity to distinguish these two is the essence of anti dogmatism. The inherent problem of doing this is language and how it is never itself the pure concepts but instead the very identities rendered by means of the pure concepts. So what then is induction? It comes on top of the rest, will my kitchen have all my knifes when I go there in an hour? I can only induce from past experience and the manifold identity trough which the kitchen "traveled" since last time. The identity of the kitchen is truly in opposition with itself, this is where isomorphism first comes to light, this is where we are trying to hold everything in our hands only to see how it fades away between our fingers. I consider the manifold of identities imagination (going back to how proof is empty), but given that they are all in one consciousness there is something totally cohesive about them. Minimal cohesion is sensibility, particular cohesion is concept. You induce from the empirical, I did not say that it is itself induced (in fact, I can not imagine a more absurd idea than the empirical being induced the way you exposed it). What is induced is simply its identity, but the identity is always constituted by concept. Since the empirical is not induced it can neither be imagined, and only in the empirical itself can all identities go away, something must remain when imagination goes away, this something is empty in concept, the thing in itself is empty in concept. Ego death may be minimal cohesion by sensible time and space, and non-duality may be empirical without sensibility, this is speculative. Though ego is more of a spectrum, and indeed much though far from everything I write is spectral ( a matter of magnitude), I take shortcuts for the alternative is a differential calculus.

Everything that is a posteriori must by necessity be induced from when it is taken up in memory if it has any meaning after a said experience. Science is built on these inductions.

@A Fellow Lighter I meant the former before that, so empirical intuition not sensible space, space is a priori. We are imposed by our sensations, they are never completely different from thought for they are all in consciousness but in a conceptual domain such as language it is important to distinguish between a posteriori and a priori, many would disagree what in particular constitutes as empirical intuition, for instance that of balance. For if it is [empirical intuition a posteriori] then it still it has to be rendered in accordance to conceptual a priori self correction mechanism for one to actually be able to balance with the feets, now sure one could label the whole thing as "instinctual", but I am concerned with avoiding all types of inductive fallacies, which is everywhere in modern science. Just like we could never reach mathematical analytical concepts (flatness, triangle, roundness, qube, etc) by mere induction, we can neither reach balance as a concept by such induction, for then we would have to induce in order to balance. What makes this vague is that we balance automatically, the synthesis of empirical intuition a posteriori constituted as feet and a priori balance is necessary for us to walk, our subconscious synthesize these things like so much else for us, yet what I have reached is a place where this synthesis has come conscious. Everything the subconscious mind does is inherently vague, and even worse it is an empty belief that there is such a thing as the subconscious. The only inductive thing is here language itself (no, actually the ground is inductive also if we were not to look at it), though we go full circle (back to my original post) if we now question how it is possible for us to make identities by induction constituting memories which masquerades as an a priori concept itself. That we can do this effortlessly is the reason people actually believes that language is a "true reference" to the conceptual, and that some may find morals "objective". (though the latter goes deeper than language itself), among other dogmatic beliefs many holds. I will answer the other comments later.

When I say that existence is necessary, I point towards the eternity of ideal (former) substance, but as an expression this must always be a mere belief, conceptually it is not true. It is self evident that appearances as substance are never totally out of existence (thereby eternal in meta time), almost every rationalist Leibniz, Spinoza, Langan, Kant, Aristotles among others knows this, but every attempt at proving it is futile. (most of these tried and failed, some of them were dogmatic and thought that that the appearance were matter itself).

To find an exact way to put this particular thought is a hassle. I am not married to any expression.

@A Fellow Lighter All beliefs says that there is something more than consciousness presently (that is their whole function, the idea that there is something more is always empty for no other reason then that one tries to escape truth by making truth subject to something in opposition to itself. Proof is rendered under truth, but truth is never proven, belief is never proven though instead the identity of Australia changes form once one travels there. Belief is empty of proof. and once Australia is seen nothing were really proven, only truth immanent. Yet thought and communication seems to bid itself to the idea of provability spontaneously, so we are better of "proving" things along our way, if we are to engage in communication WE BETTER be rationalists in conduct, there is indeed no other way so we can choose so accept ourself or not accept ourself in this way. Our cognition is trying to escape something, constantly yet is bound to do so. Just like we can speculate consciousness itself doing in escaping the thing in itself. It is hard for me to pin down what you hear mean by "substance", then again I don't know if we would find agreement on what imperceptible, imagination, function, distinction, operation and expression really means. Yet I intuit something in your expression above beyond my own preconceived thoughts, though if I were to flesh it out there would be too much association or imprecision, and to little rigor to be worth it. Substance (x) has two general different meanings, one whereby something x lasts forever and of which we are as egos a mere visitors yet as consciousness its creator. And the other whereby x is a particular in a manifold of the thing in itself, in opposition to consciousness yet rendered conceptually by means of consciousness. The former is idealism the latter physicalism. Substance is knowable in the former and believable in the latter, the latter is absurd for it points to the object of its belief as filled when it is empty. It is not empty of immanent truth, but of proof. While the former is imminently true, and impossibly proven. Yet it will never be true as a synthetic proposition, for it requires proof to be such.

@Breakingthewall By this logic there is only one true thing of everything, only one true man, only one true form of water, only one true guru, only one true thought, only one true planet. (not one in quantity, but one subset of a set) Everything can be essentialized, not Alpha more than animal. Alpha is better considered for this reason alone, as itself something less and more, something on a scale. By your logic there is also only one beta, and everything else is alpha.

@A Fellow Lighter Rational beliefs are all empty in themselves, and serve only a purpose in sensible causation. I believe Australia is a land of Sydney to which I can also travel, but I know no such thing. The belief is rational, yet empty itself, and only filled to the extent time brings about its proof in space, it can only do that by causation. But as soon as the belief is proven then it is no longer belief and changes form to truth, all belief is therefore in itself a matter of ethics. Yet truth is never negated, such that all beliefs are constituted by truth. To actually understand all this, further distinctions is necessarily made, but when "all is imagination" is the only lens trough which everything is seen, these distinctions becomes fantastical. By which point I argue one ought to stop speaking, find a cave and tend to nothing.

@r0ckyreed At will, not in general but in particular when it is the most. To let go of it, having no need to defend anything there and then. It is by the ego's will I desire this now, but there and then it is if at all possible something else. Will would here be something negative in the sense of negation, it would instead of giving life to something take the life of something away. In general I desire very much to have an ego, for otherwise there would be no tomorrow, nothing cohesive in thought. Edit (yes I wrote this primarily to myself, but it is a mere extension of the above): Since all that is forced comes with an equal anti-force, an equal backlash, the will for this negation has an accidental relation to its hypothesis when come actual. For if come actual this negation is miraculous, not in itself but in relation to everything else. And if it is not miraculous then its direction is, this direction then is an anti force to the negation yet a force to something else. This miraculous direction I know nothing of, and is empty like the future itself. It is indeed the future, but a subset of it which comes by means of something which itself is presently empty. In other words: this particular negation (and all like such) is not found by reason. You can only extrapolate from the desire, its object is itself the ego and therefore you were right to ask "whose will".

If you try to avoid your natural urge to judge people in general, and succeed to some extent at diminishing this part of yourself, then is it not likely you will fear other people's judgement of you more in general? Given that you know how hard it were to get over the threshold yourself, you surely wont expect many others to be as determined as you once were. Or do you think that while people will judge you just like they would before that your own lessened urge itself by consequence makes you less fearful or obsessive with others judgement, or are you simply free from this burden already?

Yess, proceed with vagueness, good on you. The question is not if whether we allow ourself to label the Jews chosen or superior, but what we ought to do with the substance to which the label is owed. Well, if religion is a sub-set of this substance, then at some point it ought be diminished in its fantastical, speculative and dogmatic superstitions. So that something can relate to it the way the Jews intelligence relates to non-jew intelligence. In the western world this something goes commonly by the labels "secularism", "humanism" or "democracy" among others.

"I was only wondering if you had meant that to be an alternative for the duality of “sensible intuition”" Intuition can be of the sensibilities or empirical, color is an empirical intuition, space time and causality is a sensible intuition, the latter is a priori the former is a posteriori. space is a form of a priori sensible intuition. I did not mean that it were an alternative, no.

Yes, the ego I consider to be imagined by the minimal impositions in consciousness, the sensibilities. Whatever appears by means of these sensibilities can strengthen the ego, lets say in a fight or in a debate, but since the ego is always there when the sensibilities are there (at least for me) I consider it imagined by them, in turn it is the ego which can convey this message to you. When space, time and causation disappears the ego goes away, but when there is only these things in awareness (no appearance or thought rendered by means of them) the ego is non the less minimal.

@A Fellow Lighter In a day to day life consciousness will be all there is for us, the idea of the thing in itself is a rational idea and will always collapse in pure awareness. The duality therefore, is mystical. It collapses absolutely. But it is an honest wonder at how you and me can be two peculiar and particular modes of consciousness, if there is no duality to which we are both in opposition then the belief that there is a reason we are different is necessary an appeal to one of two different formulations of a god, either one who is willing from nothing or willing from a higher imposition. If it is the latter then it simply makes possible things actual, if it is the former then it makes actual things from "nothing". Both of these has to be pantheistic and monotheistic. If something is willing from nothing then it can will itself away, our existence is a proof of this being impossible. (there is one speculative formulation of this evidence and one certain formulation of this proof, the one in which substances or appearances in consciousness are necessary (speculative) the other whereby existence is necessary (certain)) I believe we are rendered necessary by our opposition to the thing in itself, I believe unconscious organisms is an absolute impossibility. But again, I am not too interested in my beliefs, I know very well why they are as they are and at all, but it is the knowledge by which they are built I am primarily concerned with explicating, you are right however that my patience has dropped, I will not copy paste my own comments, find what you look for, there is a lot there. The duality between sensibility and consciousness is conceptual, never perfect. I have stated 10 times that consciousness transcends everything that is of us. But that does not make the sensibility of space/time, causation itself conceptual, though every possible instantiation of it in thought and in language is.

@Michael Jackson You are imposed by an idea of causation, the idea does not sustain that something always follows something else, therefore there is something prior to the idea, namely that something follows something else. All this says little about the manifold of hypothetical causes to an actual effect b and neither which in the manifold were in the causal chain in what is referd to the "physical" world, only that whatever it were which constituted the chain were causal. In a scientific experiment this can always be under determined, but in mind everything follows everything else including the scientific experiment. If it did not then you would not be here to see it, to call causation an illusion is absurd not because we can always under-determine the causal chain in the "outer sense" but because whatever the chain is we were sensible to its effect and some world prior to it. That you were sensible to some world prior to it, whether that is just a memory and not itself actual may be were you disagree, but here it is indeed convenient to believe in substances that never goes away in something called meta time. Not substances of a physical world in itself but of its appearances in mind, for this you may require to be rational. If something can be at all then it must be forever. If x is possible then x is actual. It is impossible to speak of possible but non-actual things what concerns the past, for if you do then you impose a will onto it. How can the past be impossible when it is the most possible thing? (memory) If the past is possible because of memory then it is actual because everything possible must have been.

@A Fellow Lighter No, I'm done repeating myself.

@Michael Jackson What I mean by always is that there is nothing other than causation from a to b, and also nothing else than a and b in the meeting point of presence. I made this clear above, it is not like a must be the cause of b out of a manifold a-z, when it comes to a chain of events in the 'outer sense' you can only induce what caused what out a given manifold, by means of memory of merely similar events. Or speculate by reason. But in inner sense you can always know that causation makes a, b. Without causation there would be nothing of you. Causation is not only knowable, but it is impossible not to know it and also write on a keyboard. A and B, to which there is no third is past and future in the way I meant it, it is as A and B every hypothetical causal chain takes form when actual. But out of a manifold of hypothetical causes it is not necessary the one which seems like it that is the actual cause, which one one would be forgiven for thinking I meant. The illusion is thinking you know that causation occurs in something that is independent of consciousness, causation itself in you is necessary and indisputable, to claim that it does not exist is to prove that it does.

Without x as the sensible intuitions there would never be a belief of the independence of matter, something which unfolds by means of the very sensibility. But the idea that the matter is a part of a duality of two opposite modes of existence is a different claim than in quotation, though dependent on the substance of the quotation. The belief that the experience of this matter is the matter itself is also a duality, but this is a materlialism which thinks that the other part of the duality can be the experience itself, or very similar to it. You do not have to be, and most are not, meta cognizant of how these sensibilities are necessary for dualism to actually believe in dualism.

And I think the territory is muddied between these, but I do not deny that for instance the sucking of a moms breast may be without the aid of concept, but it definitely is with the "aid" of sensible time, space and causality. Everything is connected least in the sense of a singular consciousness, but whether bodily instinct in a baby and concept also has connections seems very speculative but I must concede many instances where they definitely do. At the same time, we are breaching the realm of science itself, and it would probably be better if someone with expertise said something particular about it instead of me speaking in general.

To turn the ego completely away at will.

@Vynce The flatness of your roof is rendered in approximation to the innate concept of perfect flatness, for no other reason would you ever intuit both imperfect and perfect flatness under the same class of "flatness". You walk towards the kitchen and automatically you take the shortest route, and if you don't then that is because there is a point b between a and c, the actual line will never be perfect, but your conceptual means of navigation is. It is hard to "prove" it, actually it can't be proven except for in him who sees it himself. It is correct that time, space and causality can not be experienced, that is my whole point. They are that upon which experience is contingent, they are only "experienced" as that which occurs in them, which means that they are never themselves experienced. Now you can define experience such that time, space and causality is experienced, this only means that they are experienced trough that which they render, a posteriori knowledge (sensation). But for the sake of first order logic it is better and more precise not to consider sensibilities themselves as experience, for in that matter there would be nothing other than consciousness which makes intelligibility. At which point everything is inductive, and nothing innate. Which again means that there would be no perceived difference between anything and thereby consciousness itself impossible, identity would be impossible, cohesion impossible. Your left thumb requires empirical intuition such as color to be experienced, but it also requires the sensible intuition of space and time to be experienced, this is of course self evident. But what is less obvious is that it also requires mathematical constructs such as roundness to be experienced. Edit: the particular shape of the thumb is not innate, but that by which the shape is possible is. Edit: it is also imprecise to call the purely mathematical concepts "constructs" as they are extremely different to the conclusions which can be drawn from the them, these however, are more like constructs. These two classes have been identified as analytic (the concepts) and synthetic (the constructs rendered by means of the pure concepts).

Perhaps not look in the mirror, there is a chance I would find you ugly but that would have minimal effect on what I thought of you. There is an even higher chance that someone out there would find you pretty, and many may find you neither ugly or pretty. The mirror is probably a curse on most of us, we are meant to discover ourself without knowing with extreme precision how we look, it is actually rather weird in a sense to have any idea of our own face whether we like or dislike what we see, we definitely do not feel like it is us the way we feel like our body is ours, I believe this is a primary cause for the obsession wherever it occurs. And why women objectify their own face like it were a painting, as equally distant from themselves. It is the most essential thing about our appearance yet so very different from our inner sense, our actual essence. I would say there is an almost accidental relation between the two.

It is necessary because negation is something we are imagining right now, but which always goes away and which has no claim in opposition to it, even though we think that it has. We can not imagine away existence, negation simply will not remove it. Negation has a meaning to everything conceptual but not that which transcends all concept, existence. Knowledge, existence, information, consciousness, experience, awareness, absolute identity, presence. All these have in common that nothing negates them, that their negation is an invention to makes synthetic sense of them.

The identity of us which never changes is our necessity, not our ego but that of us which had to be. That we exist is that of us which had to be, not us as our ego but us as "something at all" or "something opposed to nothing". You can surely see that this is recursive, and so far as language is concerned what I am pointing towards could continue in its recursive nature forever. Opposed does not mean anything here of course, since we speak of precisely the thing which has no opposite. It only seems that it has an opposite, but this thing is conceptual negation masquerading as something it is not.