Reciprocality

@Aleister Crowleyy A funny fellow, though at what cost?

@Aleister Crowleyy @somegirl Are you guys truth bombing each other while insisting to be subject to the law of the other by defending yourself? What in the world do you expect out of this? And what am I missing if I say it looks like your disagreements rests on the expectation or hope of the other being composed as a personality like yourself?

You want to change your day to day behavior without trial and error, without imposing your will onto your body so to make it do the work you want it to do? This is laziness, you want to ALREADY having developed something you have not and think that introspection will program for you what in others were programmed by hard work? Maybe I have misunderstood, be sure to correct my wrongdoing if I did.

@Someone here When you postulate time as a line I consider it impossible for me and you not to actually speak of the same thing. There is a reason time is intuitively considered a line, so much so one could easily question whether it is a line that should be considered time instead. We can easily use this representation of our timeline (as a line) in the representation of the complete timeline. The problem is that here now occurs a conceptual "inflation" for lack of better terms, by the mere fact that when we represent the complete timeline we do so within the subset of it which is our timeline. We are therefore not actually even considering the complete timeline (the represented) at all, except if you allow that it (the complete) must be limited in the very way you are limited. Limited in the same way, though not limited therefore by the same content. For were it limited in the same content then there would be no "it" and thus only you as in Leo's solipsism. Leo consider paradox to be inherent to the world for this reason, I consider it to be impossible within the world (as an object of my mind) for the opposite reason. I consider that you and I can speak of [time, space and causality] to each other etc as proof that you exist because I know not what existence would be had I not been able to refer to you or within myself to these sensibilities of time and space. etc. The counter argument would be that we exist also if all sensibilities were removed, this is existentialism. (though they do more than say only this) Guess who synthesize it all? Not completely but partially: Whitehead. He argues that everything changes and that no amount of identifying will make up for this perpetual eruption. Though of course this is a postmodern fallacy, which only gets half of the isomorphism correct and denies Kant's a priori sensibility such as space and even denies consciousness itself (I consider Langan to represent that argument). To argue that we exist without our sensibilities is unironically done by means of them, and rests in its truth on a faculty of knowledge I am unaware of. And must so far as I know it be self evident if to be true yet "beside" my existence. To get the whole isomorphism correct you would simply accept that words and ideas express something completely subjective which non the less can be more or less agreed upon generally, and which stems despite because all this from both all our faculties for intuiting things like space but also our imagination which makes the empirical world appear to us. Isomorphism is minimally considered as the relation between X (a territory) and the (two or more maps (Y1, Y2) which can be made of it). It can also be considered as (fasten your seat belt) the relation between XY (the terriory and its two maps) and Z as space (the sensibility of either). Do I know that you exist? I am afraid so, though all I know of you is equal to me. Had I known you for 50 years I sill would not know who you really are and for that reason I don't really know that you exist. The construct I make of you and your personality I do not know if it exist in itself, but that in you which refers to space such to make me and you point out in the world I know exists. edit: Do I know that this thing in you which makes space sensible exists "in" the brain? Definitely not, nothing which exists exists inside anything else. Insideness is arbitrary itself, and I can only induce from experience whether you pointing to space when I say space has anything to do with the brain. There is no authority in existence which could render the belief of this sensibility as being inside your brain truthful, so belief can therefore never be about truth. (which is what most people think belief is, for they have not thought for 5 minutes on what truth is) Belief is a method thus which makes experience trough imagination fall in or out of predictability, which is essential to science as the ultimate belief.

It would depend on how developed you both are, if she would feel hurt by it then that would not mean you should not have done it unless you are sensible to her personality and have reason to expect that she would. If ethics were considered as a field then it would be magnitudes more complex a study then all other studies combined. It may be smart therefore not to expect to always please everyone but to act by certain low resolution principles with categories within which updates by your interaction with people. It is completely your responsibility though to find out what is and is not okay for you to do with the limited information you have gathered and the limited sensibility and intelligence you (and we all) must have. This forum is of course a good source for such information, though nothing compared to actual interaction. Given the minimal consequences this dilemma entails in general I think you should do what you want without much considerations of it. Use your energy more on the big dilemmas. By thinking a lot on the bigger questions these less important ones tend to fall naturally in line with the bigger ones, though it is not impossible nor a bad idea to do the opposite; as in compare and understand the lesser dilemmas as in your example in terms of the higher ones. Edit: to all of you who have these ready cut yes and no answers on normative and applied ethics: That is cute.

INTPA 70%%, 95%, 60%, 85%, 90%

@Someone here If it spirals then it would be intuitive to assume that variations of yourself would unfold, though I would consider all geometrical constructs of these concept radically arbitrary and even pure association when all is said, so far as meta-time is concerned especially.

@Someone here If time is a line (X) then the existence of your body, mind and comprehension of everything (including this line (Y)) within that mind must be a sub-set (x) of the line (X) which is infinitely smaller than the line (X), such that after zooming into the line (X) for a million years you would still have an infinity of zooming to do to find the spec of your own timeline (x). If you are clever you can even see how "this line" which I overlined by the very context it is used in (as a particular comprehension in a given timeline) changes itself so to become incomplete. At which point you would also see the recursion in trying to complete it synthetically, which then makes the only way out an appeal to a priori sensibility, in terms of which all lines would refer to line X. By the simple logic that there can not be a "nothing" which makes the line begin nor end. The question is from here simple, does the line repeat like a circle or does it not? (both answers would constitute meta-time). And if we can find limitations to possible variations of matter within a three dimensional space, then we would require a 4 dimensional space to not have everything repeat, at some dimension we would not be able to calculate possible variations and thus be synthetically uncertain about whether we will repeat or not so far as we allow space to take a more than 3 dimensional spatial form. If we do not find such a limitation in variation to a 3 dimensional space then we would be uncertain also of it repeating or not, and not merely the four dimensional mathematical constructs which I would argue to be contingent on it anyway.

@Phil King That stage red is a more developed stage than beige does not make it less cruel. The beige and purple societies hundred of thousands of years ago worked far more empathetically towards eachother ingroup-wise than the emperial states did outgroup wise. If you define psychopathy to be the mere lack of empathy towards particular other groups then you have defined it out of the psychological context of not having the capacity in the first place. At no point so far as we know were there more psychopaths than there are today, and certainly no substantial difference, unless the words gets defined by the very object you have now found it useful to be labeled under. As in constituting no meaning relative to its actual use case. That there are no substantial difference in proclivity (not capacity) to be empathetic towards others of the same species can be seen in primates and in the animal kingdom in general. Empathy is inherent to every stage, the only substantial thing that changes in this axis is what gets defined as in and out group.

@Someone here Everything possible is defined after the fact, so far as our knowledge is concerned everything possible must therefore occur and has therefore already occurred. The reason this would make almost everyone confused is because they experience for example the impulse to drink water and then goes to the fridge as though the drinking of the water from the fridge thereafter were made possible by the impulse. Not at all aware of how the whole scenario is potentiated right now. And by extension that when they now consider whether to go for a sip of water they are already realising the full extent of their consideration of that sip. Their mistake is how they have made the future into a caricature of it, into the sensibility they have of its possibility. But that the future is possible so far as they are sensible does not mean that they know what is possible within it, though they do know what is possible in their sensibility of it right now. " infinite possibilities need not necessarily mean that all possibilities are realised." I claim it does, because imaginative speculation has no epistemic validity. And so far as knowledge is concerned we must define possibility after the fact as already having been realised, yet the possibilities themselves beyond this we know nothing about. I would forgive anyone the confusion here. But right now I can't do any better explicating it.

Lets consider first that matter is the only substance that could be in the only possible consideration of a mediation of it; space and time. Since it can not begin to exist from nothing it must either have always existed or fluctuated in its existence. Since we necessarily define existence as something that is conscious in its totality whether we know it or not (and whether it is or not), must therefore belong to the concept of infinity. And since either the fluctuating or the eternally existent substance must be infinite, then the total sum of physical dynamics as matter, were it to be considered as existent independent or dependent on our consciousness must therefore itself be conscious. (as to say the only way it could be existent without being conscious is if existence transcends consciousness itself, the speculation of which is futile) Eternal recurrence is predicated upon physical matter as it unfolds in the absolute consciousness to be limited in possible variations, for the argument were it not limited like that is simple: Infinite variation so far as we consider it in in a 1 dimensional time frame makes your consciousness wherever it happens on that time-frame singular and finite thus never to recur. The very recurrence would actually force us to define physical variations as limited, especially so if you explicitly involve causality in the deduction though implicitly you are forced to.

@Seth When you expand in your considerations of art you are either diving deeper into the essence of art itself or you are merely standing in reactive opposition to the subjective nature of art by opposing your own subjective considerations above others while unironically thinking you do the opposite. Such that when everything should be considered art the actual artistic expression have been completely inflated. This particular postmodern reaction as described above unfolds trough an 'abundance theory' that everything ads on everything else, and that we are thus what we want to be and not what we are made of.

Art is abstracting out the essence of all things such to make the particular representations of those things pale in comparison to it. This essence can either be aesthetically pleasing or existentially authentic. So how can one abstract out the authentic essence of something which is not merely a reproduction of the universe which is authentic already as in thereby needing no abstraction? By paying better attention to it.

All programming can be questioned, but that very questioning unfolds in the same sphere all programming happened in. There is something which makes both possible. You think and experience trough it every day, yet never about it. So what is it? It is not consciousness, for that is the recognition that they are there at all as well as the result of them being there. To recognize what it is is all there is left to do when programming have exhausted its utility.

Gore is my best friend to easily load of anger and frustration, though more than anything it balances out existential dread/angst. The morbid curiosity part is gone, and it were this part which introduced me to it. On psychedelics I have not tried watching it, it sounds like a bad idea though so good luck to the braver of us.

"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages" Do you think purple is beautiful? Well so far as you think it is you do not therefore think it would be beautiful if your teeth were purple. And just like that I think gay marriage is in general a betterment for the society it is made legal in, and the freedom it represents for those engaging in that marriages. But I do not therefore think that it is an all good, to take a random suburban culture in Africa or many other places and simply dictate their laws according to the ideal of gay freedom would be more harmful than not. Though it is hard to conceive of any place in which couples themselves would be subject to harm from within at such a rate which would make it better for the laws to prohibit their marriage, as I am sure many conservatives have argued. And even if it were that may not have changed my mind on the legality of it. When it comes to established religions with cultural significance in the west it is easier for me to constrain them to let gay people marry in their churches than for example a private marriage ceremony company. Just like the dynamics of two galaxies colliding it is never one or the other which completes both, and just like that is the essence of human behavior: ethics. I believe in neither universal nor objective morals, though the general is undeniable albeit often trivial.

Problems like these are so trivial. Instead of questioning where to draw the line between words, try instead to inquire about the dynamics the words are merely representing. And so far as I entertain your question, I see that you have already found an answer to it. The answer you have found is expressing in particular terms what in general only means 1. people and 2. groups of people. So far as perspective is something that one person has on a particular thing then a paradigm is something that one person is subject to from his culture of many people which then relates to particular things. Though these are merely words, they can mean whatever you want. The question is therefore how the logical structure beneath them operates.

@Someone here I'm sorry but when I read your comment I see pure information, I don't know what to do with it. "If you insist that Muslims do not twist the words of the Quran, yet also admit that there are different interpretations by Muslims, then some may view the words as being "twisted" and some not." What I believe this means, or more so what I believe this to mean is 'The information of their holy book can be interpreted in various ways, and some are also twisting the information willingly. And that to insist that Muslims have a unilateral interpretation would contradict the evidence that they indeed do not.' On the below I can merely say 'okay'.

@Vincent S Yes it can feel amazing to take radical responsibility for not only our schema as we implicitly discuss above, but also the very inbuilt nature which the schema is subject to. I believe stage yellow is primarily the former, and whatever transcends turquoise is primarily the latter.

@Someone here Wait, you want to burn churches so that they can build them up again? I am no logician, but that is the conclusion of your premises above.

@Vincent S And you can relieve yourself of immense pain by having deprogrammed your flawed culture from the mind. And you will do so proportional to the amount of loneliness you can handle. Unless you would be so lucky as to find someone who shares your essence despite coincided cultural deprogramming.

Because we want it both ways, we want to respect cultures while not having to deal with them. Because we want to feel welcoming and tolerant without doing the actual labor of being welcoming and tolerant. Because we create a society in which our opinions are more important than our actions, because we are narcissists in disguise. Though it is all built on a genuine recognition that we are not culturally superior to others, except the conservative one of our own culture, which is our biggest contradiction. So why? It is an aesthetic, a mere apprehension so we don't have to think.

Yes suffering is essential to the type of growth which makes you independent and truly yourself. Yet just like you can experience hundredfold more pain than you could ever benefit from trough a needle in your arm you can limit your growth trough angst and self imposed trauma. So what are the traumas you should impose on yourself? To question and penetrate beliefs to the very limits, you can not predict how much you can handle and therefore you must suffer more than minimal.

Immanuel Kant, as evident in 'Critique of pure reason' Nothing speaks of integrity more than renunciation or abandonment of the desire to know things in their independence from yourself. Edit:, so far as reading the book goes, it may not be necessary for understanding its contents, he is famous precisely because there are many who studied him and for that reason there are ways to go about it indirectly trough those. Most of its contents do not require much understanding, because he speaks to that in you which makes understanding possible.

Arthur Schopenhauer