Reciprocality

Many a knee jerk reaction. Psychological disorders are defined radically removed from a comprehension of spiritual insights. It is an individual and an individual only who can come to terms with the variety of their experiences, there can not be so far as we know done a general science beyond any individual and their particular experience which has any bearing on their experience, for this reason alone it is futile to conclude from speculation on a difference between disorders and mystical phenomena. In truth all phenomena is mystical, and to that effect all psychological literature becomes speculation. Derealization is not a particular meaningful idea, solipsism is. The former is an identity that has been put on a bunch of different individual experiencing things that are understood as different to consensus reality by themselves and by their therapists. The latter can integrate what can in the former be denied, that is a phenomena in which rationality is defined by the limits of the phenomena itself by the subject which has it.

There is no ought at these bottom layers of perception. And when there are they are inessential. And that is paradoxical to my signature, were it taken as such a bottom layer.

For some men not jerking of can be exactly what is needed for having something to lose if the courage to pick up girls were absent. (as in losing the pleasure of coming) Or better yet: that there is something more to lose without jerking of then coming as evident in the girls that you have no courage to pick up. To which reason not jerking of can be found as a coping mechanism. A complex world indeed, the question is which are you?

Whats your theory that you most want to speak with him about?

On belief (i will not continue writing with myself after this) How can I believe in an independent world from myself? The very object of belief would be included in the self that I believe it to be independent from. I want to say that i believe in a physical world, for my emotions want it that way. But the contents of this independent thing is completely empty! Would you look at that! It is a nothing theory, a nothing philosophy. At best it must be god, as the will of all things. My logic can not accept a god that creates itself for all my experience says that existence is a necessity. So now I ask, why us? why me, why then this particular configuration? All such questions are included in the self that asks them, they can not be beheld to an answer beyond myself. I can not conceive going deeper than this except 1. enlightenment and 2. a teleology which speaks on the place we are headed towards and not merely the things that are.

Lets do it this way, lets say that bricks are bricks. Lets say that we have a concept of bricks because we have seen them again and again so to at last make a category out of them. (empiricism) And that the bricks are out there whether or not we see them. (rationalism) First of, trough which means could we make a category of bricks? Well the category 'brick' would depend on the very same thing the independent brick did, as in first and foremost time and space. Time and space must therefore either be themselves something that we have understood from perpetual experience which begs the question of what they themselves depend on etc. or time and space must be themselves be inner as well as outer experience. The Skeptic (because he do not dare to admit the system being closed despite a priori certainty) then sinks into an absolutist realm of imagination from where space and time as that upon which the bricks depend could come from anywhere and therefore claims uncertainty to why they can comprehend it. They would simply say "prove to me! prove to me!" a posteriori on matters that are purely a priori. The rationalist is both worse and better than the empiricist, in the construction of the category of brick rationalism is a necassary evil so to say but the same is NOT the case for time, space and causality (and more). But the empiricist remain humble to the idea of an independent existence of time and space from himself.

@Carl-Richard @DocWatts Haha well I be damned, I could do a different approach. It is a silly game in some sense though it has become natural for me to not write more than necessary, yet at the same time defend against the senseless interjections that are so common before they occur. First of, there are no discrete objects, your consciousness is the minimal and only evidence required for the certainty thereof. The bricks are clearly here beside me, yet it is not they that are bricks but instead me who make them such. The 'them' that I call bricks are never also there when i close my eyes, yet something necessarily remains, for now I speak of the very predicate to which the bricks could be proven if I so chose to look at them. I call it, as others have before me an outer and inner experience, (you would be forgiven for finding that absurd), there is an intuition which connects the content of both. (i cringe now for that is not always the case but this is the new approach) This is not some ultra skepticism/empiricism (i do not reference my imagination as they do for the potential of being wrong, that is a Humean insanity), I am only skeptical of one thing so far as i know, and that is the idea of a separate existence beside my own as knowledge from reason. I am a closed system at perpetuity, yet new things unfolds all the time, so very strange don't you think? I probably should stop giving answers, it is likely a pathology of mine. You would like me more if I begun asking the questions instead.

@Raptorsin7 You thinking that cult following or not, delusion or non delusion, shortsightedness or not, wisdom or less wisdom has any bearing on enlightenment or non enlightenment is a mistake. (which is not to speak in general terms about how likely you are to be wise from a state of enlightenment) There is nothing more clearly established from a mere peak at a history then that. This Nahm case should show the general direction this forum will take, but why this obsession with him in particular? I ask not because I think this obsession is unwarranted, but because I don't understand it. Which of his advises were useless?

It is almost like this thread could need a mod, oh wait.

@Inliytened1 If he have not experienced them (the awakenings) then he can only take their contents so far as they are more then his understanding of the words you speak as beliefs.

@DocWatts The bricks of which this wall beside me is composed, they are known by me as i experience them, yet this knowing of them which i reference now contains the inner and not the outer intuition of objects, that the outer experience of a brick can follow with an inner intuition of its meaning with certainty outside the realm of dispute is in general the reason rational men confuse the map for the territory, epistemic humility occurs first when neither is taken for the completeness of the other. Such that the knowledge of the outer intuition is radically removed from both thoughts and even more so language. Even in this language above I speak of knowing as though it were different than the brick, it is not, for this reason Epistemology and Ontology must collapse into a non-duality which permeates all differences yet reference non trough reason, except only to the limits of reason from being itself.

@melontonin Yes it is amazing how putting things in a new way can radically change the complete picture, schema, paradigm, whatever. I were hoping someone would get that reason/knowing distinction, and you did. Justified beliefs are a reference to our faculty of synthetic a priori intuitions both beyond pure logical certainty as in the analytical a priori but also beyond the synthetic a posteriori experience, this 'glue' in the middle is referenced further down in the same comment you responded to. Imagination is the fuel by which this faculty is running, without it consciousness may be completely impossible. (and I would argue so) You can never justify believes at a faster pace then you can imagine the completeness of the ego. Nothing is ever really justified (in the pure logic sense), though no less or more so then what is minimal for surviving by the second.

@Carl-Richard When I see a bird taking a shit I know only that this bird took this shit this once, or indeed only when i see that it does it and not afterwards. It is an object of reason that this bird takes shits in general. Even more so if i deduce from this that birds in general takes a shit. It is an object of reason that this bird is there in the world also when i close my eyes. And so it goes trough radical complexity. These objects of reason (pardon my examples) are both pointing you towards the idea of a physical world by themselves, as well as unfolding in the intuition of space. But the idea that there is anything independent of you which comes along with these intuitions or with culture, and that this independent dimension has the same kind of existence as you have yourself is to stretch the authority of reason to sillyland. Edit: Materialists projects their own existence into the assumption that the objects of reason has an independent existence beyond themselves. This is very understandable, precisely because nothing can be beyond existence, the problem is again the authority they assign to mere reason. edit2: Hume defeated the rationalists by mere imagination of birds that 'perhaps' does not shit after all, I claim imagination needs take no such part and actually is often a delusion used as such. Because speculation and knowledge is different, the claims that are good for 'but what if..' are mere entertainment of ideas, while knowledge speaks to logic and the senses alone. Entertainment of ideas are both in motion, the objects of this motion are irreducible to either. As soon as you want to have a knowledge of the motion beyond the being of their mere unfolding you are insane. Science can never be a knowledge precisely thereto.

The idea of a non-existence is a rationalism which means negation, is is an intellectual necessity for thought as such. To claim belief in its independence beyond reason is equal to claiming a belief in probability beyond Bayesian reasoning, that is claiming that something can unfold in nature by chance without a projection of our own knowledge of the given thing within it.

What I believe you mean here, or to put it in my terms rather would be the difference of affirming that something occurs at all, prior to all definitions which would merely follow from that fact (as in the Sartrean 'Existence precedes Essence'), and the many things that could unfold on the account of a given predicate trough that occurrence. To try to define the former would be to reduce what unfolds beyond a given concept into a given concept, it is insensible. Altogether meaningless, yet so very instructive. "Describing ontology as what does and doesn't exist is useful for painting a picture of what makes it distinct from other other aspects of metaphysics" Well i get you, and I believe many would do the same and so far as someone can understand something from it I guess it is fine. The reason being and existence are words with different meaning is because different people have tried to define what is as mentioned above 'beyond definitions', in the endeavour of which some have been less naive then others.

Camus Sartre Nietzsche

@DocWatts Most metaphysics does not even regard existence as a problem to be solved, or they don't regard themselves as a relation in it's solution, and for that reason I have a hard time classing their speculations as existential questioning at all. Ontology is about the nature of being whether or not the one studying it have the capacity to comprehend how that reflects of off himself existentially, not a mere confirmation of what does and does not exist. Outside the ontology branch of metaphysics there is made classes of things that for the purposes of Actualized gets deconstructed, for example the idea of identity typically unfolds outside ontology but for someone who is sufficiently conscious that becomes complete delusion. At the same time you have to group things together in some way, I believe this is a very subjective matter and is radically outside the reach of academic philosophy and science. Unless you are taking a degree then be smart and steer away from it's drivel, except the very classes of things that speak to you from within yourself. It can be said that it is just as easy to be confused about the insanity of SD orange rationalism from a yellow perspective as it is to comprehend how it all unfolds together in the yellow side of things from the orange perspective.

If there is no 'you' then there is no 'money', would monopoly money suffice for this course?

@Twentyfirst The idea of her will change form, in one instance she is both made sense of and experienced trough the senses. In another instance she is merely made sense of.

As long as you do not throw a Dawkins debate in their face I believe there is little harm in showing them an alternative to their worldview which do not directly confront it. Except if you are a very seriously inclined skeptic, then it could be best to put all on the table so to avoid driving yourself mad. If they do not bother you with Religion that often then your response may be best in equal proportion.

@Carl-Richard I believe in the study of ideas trough their minimal coherence within ones own mind, from the mind itself. Such that instead of asking what the difference between ontological and methodological reductionism is you venture out into problematic world so to find in it precisely the place and reason where the ideas bifurcate. In this way you posses not only the subjective defining power of words, but have alone the complete authority over every single word you use. Such that it would be impossible to be wrong on your applications of the ideas (if you are good at it), because the words becomes mere illusions that you but onto bigger conceptual illusions or truths. (oh boy this can be misinterpreted) To make it concrete, I were unaware that there were formal labels that differentiated between the method and ontology of reductionism until right now, yet upon reading about the difference it were as though I had studied them already, and of course in essence I have. The latter is a rationalism which is naive to the limits of its mind so to believe its conclusions can speak of independence. The former sees new things unfolding every day in science, it knows not what to make of it but it will not deny empirical reality, it does so trough whatever ontology 'works' so to say. It can do so without any belief of independence. Independence is whatever object is owed its existence from reason alone, sometimes these objects of reason unfolds into the paradigm of the physical and other times the Theological. (i will elaborate on this if you want) Reductionsim itself varies, sometimes it begins with the premise that all things must at their smallest part be the same. At other times it simply reduces all higher order explanations to the sum of the smallest parts they find, without explicit claims beyond that at all.

@ivankiss The argument of truth being outside knowledge would actually stand in proportion to the impossibility of simply being without concluding anything about it.

If the earth is flat then its area in relation to its circumference must be a forth of its current size.

@ivankiss Belief separates from truth the way a fan separates from its current. It ultimately does not, but as far as language is sensible they do. What your claim has to do with physicalism is simple, the idea that there is something independent of you encapsulate both. This idea is a belief, as i referenced as such. : )

You begin merely affirming things that it would make you insane to deny. You then find kinds of things in some naive opposition to other kinds of things, you are sure to discover that these kinds already have labels associated with them throughout history free of charge so to say. You ask if it is possible to know what separates such kinds, if you conclude with yes then you have done so aware of your reasoning faculties as they alone could triangulate such results. (others would say they were always there to be discovered, ex. Kantian idealism) Some people would at this point take leaps of faith and conclude that a brain predates such kinds and are the true reason they unfold, other people would make rigorous scientific analysis of the brain and make statements on its connection to the mind trough an inductive method from empirical information to believe what causes what in so far as they after the analysis score good in their predictions. Most of the latter class would be Epistemic Rationalists, that is they believe in abduction from induction, they believe in knowledge as objects of reason. Some of those believe that their objects of reason says something about an independent existence, these are ontological rationalists. Others would be skeptical about knowledge from induction, they would often altogether make a complete distinction between relation between things (a priory) and Impressions (a posteriory). Epistemic Empiricism as such holds knowledge to be the impressions in themselves. Impressions as defined as cold, warmth, heartbeat, visuals, etc. Epistemology is the heart of science, good epistemology has the potential to revolutionize it.