Reciprocality

@A Fellow Lighter It is rather scary to see so many well capable people being fooled out of the bare minimum which makes communication and all kinds of thoughts possible. Luckily it is primarily language itself that fools us. That I can refer to space at all, that such a thing as me intuiting it is possible is more than concept, yet at the same time me referring to it is conceptual. Yet for me to refer to it such that you make sense of it and can therefore apply its meaning to a space in which objects may be placed requires you to innately know of space. If this were not innate then the only alternative argument were to say that the intuition of space (I care not what you call it) came from induction by experience of the objects you could place in it, but this would be impossible because then they would float freely having no cohesion, every second in which you do not experience non-duality is therefore a proof of space not being induced. I can come back to the rest of your contentions if we at the very least can establish agreement here. Edit: I should add that I do not speak about a physical space as something independent of me.

If there is anything here of interest, then feel free to PM me about it. I am happy to hear from anyone.

I know not what to make of it that most commentators here work towards a belief concerning a singular under-exposed dimension of the state of this forum, instead of elucidating their impressions of it such to synthesize this information into cohesion or meaning. It is no different than putting the horse behind the cart, I guess you can reach your destination that way but oh my how much unwarranted effort.

That we are so peculiar and particular, yet understand existence as such a necessary and symmetrical thing better both in conjunction make it clear how there is more than us. Even though such a thing can never tap into us, and us never into it.

@Epikur yes

@Raptorsin7 Remember not to speak your mind in proximity of Epikur unless you have evidence to support your claims. He is after all your judge and this is nothing short of his courtroom.

I call it terrorism when civilians are being bombed intentionally, it's curious when such standards are not held for Putin. It must be the privilege of all privilege to sit in the west and choose to believe Russian propaganda, makes it easy at least to understand how they are fooled those who posses no such choice.

I will never understand these equations.

1. Do you believe in something because of a general consensus on this forum stemming from a desire to be validated in your opposition to a wider culture? 2. What if you made out your own mind in an opposition to a given culture and from there found like minded people on the given forum? If you do not care about your ideas unless they can be validated by like minded people, then that can be a symptom of query 1. So far as this symptom is considered evidence for the idea you have of cults, and you find good evidence for this in the forum then there you have your answer. To go even more meta on it would be to define cult by the symptom itself such that you can easily compare this forum with other strata of society, and end up with a theory on how much instead of whether or not actualized is a cult, or for that matter how much society is a cult. Hint: actualized is a cult, but society at large is even more so.

Every time we speak of the physical we make imperfect maps, so I am unclear as to whether it is actually possible to make much sense of physical infinity by science. I guess it must be seen a priori, in fact I know so.

@KingCrimson The thing I would consider here is why mathematics can be infinite, because this general rule says nothing about physical durations but something about how our minds can make distinctions. It is simply because we can take two distinct numbers and divide them by a third that infinity occurs, that is actually not true, there is a general rule underlying this example which is its reason for being possible. You have to intuit this general rule for yourself, as you must intuit everything for yourself. 10 divided by 3 is 3.333.. N, but this says nothing about physical infinity, only how our minds make imperfect maps.

It is though, unclear to me if it is by means of this meta time I consider my existence inevitable or if I am sensible to meta time because I am conscious period.

There are mathematical expressions of infinity which patterns necessarily never repeat. Is three dimensional space just like that? If it is then it would be trivial to say that anything ever repeats. At the same time, everything must in some sense never go completely away from existence (for elsewise they could never have been experienced at all), which is why if we consider everything in a unity of metatime no repetition is required, just an infinity of manifestations that never begun nor ended. Is it one dimensional? I don't think it makes sense to even ask the question. Everything must in meta time be simultaneous, thus have no dimension.

This freedom is never subject to the ideas you impose on it, though will only act trough the limits of such things which you do not posses a power to take away. It is impossible for you to have had it in your ideas of a past, though necessary towards the possibility of a future.

You have free will, though you have never had it.

In no place reigns our hypocrisy more extreme than how well we desire life though do most in our power to prevent it.

Haha, of course they are losing the war. The day they do not have control of Ukraine is the day they have lost it, and if you think that is less than inevitable in the next 10 years then good lord.

@Ulax I assume that you want a method which makes it easier to decode symbolic information in general, this is naive. That is like distrusting your brain, it does what it is supposed to by nature. The answer for dealing with dyslexia so far as by that you mean learning symbolic representation of concepts is to practice a lot, chances are fat that despite the ambiguity of every science which has to do with mind your and my brain is wired the way they represent concepts in a similar way. I were diagnosed at 11, without the effort I put into acquiring English and Norwegian (I had a dyslexic Grandmother who were also a teacher) I could never end up having it my way with English as I do now twice that age. If you are less fortunate as in facing teachers that do not specialize the curriculum to your needs then I would suggest making language a monster that only you can face and only you can tame, and do know that when you have tamed it chances are fat you can use it better than most and in ways they can not even imagine. I can now effortlessly find five or ten ways of saying the same thing, I can read a given thing and find a better and denser way of writing it automatically, in part I think this skill to this extent comes from my dyslexia. Three years ago despite being fluent in English I could not by means of it explicate a hundredth of my ideas, now at 22 the ratio has turned on its head. This, had I given up at 12 would be impossible. It still is tiresome, mind you, processing language, but what is the point of life if we resent the challenges it presents us? I am unsure how old you are, but the older you are the better it would be for you to obsess with syntax in particular than grammar and spelling in general.

It is not only natural but necessary that these divisions occur, and in no sense does that the other forum is a shameless ripoff of this one mean that its content will be any lesser than the contents here. To consider it a conspiracy is merely self indulgent, the people that leave simply wants to leave, how just they are in taking with them people herefrom can be measured only in the effects which entails , nothing mysterious about that, on the other hand it is entirely fine and sensible to make it as hard for them as can be. Some laws are best stated to scare people from committing them, than as expressions of what should not be done, and therefore as pointers to the quality of someones character.

Everything which requires a belief is a scam. And everywhere a question is raised a belief is required. A new signature?

Intelligence is the most meta subject there is, at least within current academia, it is mind boggling how much of it we have. The more people that are measured in an IQ setting the closer to a theory of intelligence you can extract from the results, to reduce an individual to their result is therefore inherently a problem. The score can be accurately conceived of in relation to the one taking it the way a predator relates to the places it hunts its most typical prey. Such to predict the potential for a lions survival by means of that (the place it hunts) alone as similar to predicting a Nobel laureate by their scored IQ. It would work a great deal, but not say much of the underlying connection by itself.

I don't mean that in a demeaning sense or anything, I have written hundreds of documents by means primarily of association, one can use that to reach further than by logic. And even to extend reasoning itself. Though I posses also the humility to decipher between them, and that probably also comes from experience.

@Carl-Richard Well I will let you associate things with other things then, if it satisfies you then in some sense that is all one needs.

@Carl-Richard I agree, there is no space when it disappears from consciousness. The fact that it reappears if so only as pure form without content shows you how it is more than rational and more than imaginary or belief. That you can think it without giving it content shows how all the content that can be placed by means of it continges on it and not the other way around which would then constitute an inference. That consciousness is possible without it then again shows us how consciousness is even more fundamental than it. A general map on the cuff: God/selflessness/understanding as an end in itself > human general consciousness/presence > sensibility/actual/necessity/a priori space/time > a priori causality/concepts in general/pure mathematics >(?) variable/isomorphism > word/identity as invariant/self/concept and math in particular > magic below reason

@Carl-Richard You have flipped everything on its head, it is wrongly inferred by us humans that space is physical. This is an induction from the experience of touch, as to say we assign space with an inherent quality of touchness if you like. We called it originally physical that which can be touched, in addition to this we have wrongly assigned space with many other qualities as for instance particles. All such inferences whether from experience or from pure abstraction I will readily give you credit in calling constructed conceptions. These are subject to a necessary unity in which they may be placed, space is not composed of them just like consciousness is not composed of the things which appears in it. (as consciousness is also when there is nothing appearing in it) Consequently if space were an inference from the aforementioned concepts, and in turn those concepts were also purely inferred then you have committed yourself to a house of cards which falls under the smallest scrutiny, or without. What you are left with is pure mysticism in which everything unfolds by will and random. As in denying everything which has to do with anything else, or what is worse special pleading in which you play at your own accord a game where whatever you wants to be connected is and whatever does not fit your mood does not. As I alluded to you have got stuck in language, you can not make certain crucial distinctions. I assume it has to do with a certain idea spreading like wildfire which states that everything is imaginary, I hate to ruin it but imagination is wholly contingent on the intuition of space. And our every second proves it both to me and to you. Question is what could make someone deny it? (in truth not even that is actually possible, which is why it is a language trick by you) So far as we play the game and allow everything to be imaginary we prove by means of the very playground that it is not. Our egos are imagined, our lives are imagined, our words are imaginary, meaning is imaginary but sensibility and consciousness is actual. And that it is actual seems like an inference, but it only seems that way when you have attributed language with the authority you have not taken responsibility for yourself.