Reciprocality

I don't even understand what the problem is, there is information and then we class it in various groups due to distinct characteristics. So eh yes, there are alpha males and beta males and a million other classes if you discover the characteristics. This is self evident. The question is not "if it is real" but what it means that it is real. The better scientist you are the more meaningful it becomes that alpha males and beta males exists. Can you find the gene? Can you align this map with another? If you can then its potential as a meaningful science grows exponentially.

@somegirl IF we allow ourself to distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic value then I would be sure to agree with you that people in general are worth as much as each other regardless of which country they live in, as constituting intrinsic value. Yet a declaration of war on a people of a certain system stands in instrumental relation to our own countries. Every country has an instrumental effect on all others, but there we must then distinguish between degrees, and Ukraine is in the middle of Europe. This makes things complicated.

It is both an imposition/retardation and a potentiation/acceleration of the mind. It makes you both sane and insane at the same precise time. (unit/measurement relation, object/identity relation) It makes meaning a possibility without creative effort. edit: It is an easy way out, solution to your problem.

@hello1234 Good.

@hello1234 First of, it would not do you any harm not to be Ukrainian from the beginning.

@itachi uchiha I must admit though ,that a few of the people you are dealing with here are not equipped to take on this issue.

@itachi uchiha There is no shortage of fault to be distributed over Nato leading up to this conflict, it is inherently an impossible task to both expand indefinitely while maintaining world peace. They are not adequately mature for their job, as Putin is not adequately mature to deal with it. It is because we have higher expectations of NATO that we are justified in judging it harshly according to a given standard. Nothing of this (including the precursory threat by Putin) takes anything away from his responsibility, unless you think of him as a zombie.

@itachi uchiha While it is correct that this forum is not much short of an echo chamber, Putin is bombing and murdering masses of children by intent. Pick your poison I guess.

Consciousness would be absolutely everything that happens except for the thing (object, universe) in itself, yet also this is in consciousness so far as we think of it or refer to it. (though we really cant think of it or refer to it at all, just like you can not really believe in god only a certain idea you have of a certain thing) So it is not a thought like other thoughts, if anything is mystical it would be this "thought", or the experience of even considering such a thing that could be independent of us. Our rationalism understands how we are contingent on the thing in itself by means of the a priori causation we attribute the a posteriori spatial part of us which is intuited as the conscious "result" of this independent thing in itself. Which is also why some of us think we are matter itself. Most rationalists are dogmatists, those of us who leave the thing in itself alone, and do not claim knowledge over it but accept that regarding 'it' we can only speculate however, we are in this regard not dogmatic at all. It should make anyone mind-blown to even consider if this thing in itself can be something different than conscious, I know not whether it is or not. Panpsychists would say that it is, they are simply unfamiliar with their own limitations.

@A Fellow Lighter Well great! I appreciate you bearing with me thus far! Yes I would agree that consciousness had hardly any meaning if sensibility weren't 'in it'. I would only speak of my impressions of the forum in general, not the whole thing. So now, consider an object that you could not consider had you not had this sensibility of space. Any object, this object has a certain identity which makes it both possible to be experienced in space with your eyes open and which makes you capable of thinking about it without actually seeing it in space. Is this identity a priori the same way space is? OR in another way: is this identity created from the experience you first had of it, or is this identity also there before you experienced it the first time? I would of course say the former, but is it then a priori? And is it not amazingly mind boggling that such an a priori undertaking is at all possible then? If it is a priori just like space, then the experience of chair after first having seen it would depend on its identity even though the identity were made by the experience the first time. I call it imagination when something is dependent on where we go, but not that which is necessarily the same wherever we go. (this will perhaps get clearer down below) The thing is that every component of the identity of the chair is also something sensible a priori, in this way even though the chair is a peculiar and very distinct object it is made entirely our of our inherent (chirs langan would call it "syntax") that we distribute over it. At the same time we have an idea of the chair in itself and independent of us, but what we must consider now is that this idea even though it is loud and clear must remain empty. Kant called it "the thing in itself". We are able to imagine experiences by the way our mind effortlessly combines a priori sensibilities (most of which are mathematical) such to make distinct objects, we are not such things which must necessarily be subject to these objects but we are necessarily such things that are subject to these sensibilities that comprise these possible objects. Does these object exists in themselves? I would actually say yes, just like Kant I would say that there is nothing we can say about them. (expect perhaps that they are different to each other) I expect you to be skeptical, and I will do my best at defending it all, that you understood what I meant with sensibility is that upon which the rest depend, which is a great start.

@A Fellow Lighter I only meant that I have no problem with what you call it, even though I have my ideas of what it would better be called. In this sense you are free not to call space an intuition, we can regard it as sensibility, we can also regard it as something a priori. If we did not have this a priori sensible intuition of space then we could not operate in what we call "physical" space, neither could we think of any object in space, neither could objects be possible in our consciousness. The very nature of what we speak is of such a kind that it actually is not important for us to "equate" lingual background, for as far as you have any idea of space, and indeed can write back on a keyboard or even think of a keyboard we speak of the same thing, the problem is that you will not admit to it being more than imagined. Even though your writing proves the opposite, this is all fine for this mistake is the primary problem of the metaphysics of actualized forum in general. Pretty much nothing would be possible in consciousness except perhaps for consciousness itself without this intuition of space.

@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.