Reciprocality

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.

@Carl-Richard Not to be obsessive here (I am a little bit about these matters) but I also spotted an internal inconsistency, which is fine. These are words, and they can trick us all. When you said that "I didn't do that." responding to my assertion that you reduced space into the definition which reports it you are at odds with your final conclusion above in 'space being inferred', as the only way space can be inferred is as the mere word which represents it.

@Carl-Richard Meditation my friend, teaches you the opposite.

Haha love it

You may ask how I know they are the same for us all, to which the response require no more evidence that the mere fact that we can point to for instance "space".

@Carl-Richard If you have not accessed particles in experience then obviously they are purely abstract, and even though they are posed as being behind the scenes in such a case it says absolutely nothing about what actually is behind the scenes. To believe that would be rationalistic materialism, but what you pose is a naive skepticism in which the very intuition of something is made up of the particulars anyone places under it as a class or set. The distinction matters a lot, may I ask if space is also made out inductively from experience? Time aswell? Because when I speak of "behind the scenes" I reference only the very idea we all have about there being such a thing, which we all posses with an accidental relationship to what we think of this behind the scene being composed of. It matters because conceptual constructions are a part of our schema and our personality, but these intuitions are the same for us all.

@Carl-Richard This is a Humean fallacy, while it is true that there exists inferences with regard to the particular things this intuition of something behind the scenes consists of, it is not an inference that there is such a thing as something behind the scenes. To think that reduces it to induction, but induction regards only the content and not the structure content necessarily connects to.

@Carl-Richard Everything that is spoken is a construct. Some such constructs refers to an intuition that is not, we refer for instance to the past as something which is different to the definition we use by the word past. If we could not do this we could not do anything. That which is behind the scenes is an undeadly intuition that is precisely the opposite of a conceptual construction as for instance its definition. Why on earth would you reduce the intuition of for example space into the definition you create because of it? For that is no different to reducing the intuition of something behind the scenes into the ideas we represent it with.

Since 1. everything is unified and 2. your are something particular there must be something behind the scenes, but because every unification is subject to reason we can only speak of and think of the scenery. The something which is behind the scenes must be no different than your essential being, and therefore be unspeakable. The reason it must be the same as you is because imagination does not have the authority to designate possibility, so even the thought that something can be different than you (as mere consciousness) is inherently absurd though perfectly possible as speculation and inherent to survival.

Solipsism is a rationalism which claims something it can not know, if the claim is true then the truth in the claim has to contradict the claim itself. Solipsism reduces rationality to something that it can not knowingly do, unironaically by means of rationality. You can not have it both ways, this does not undermine your enlightenment but your wisdom. The only way you can rationally say that only you exist is if you include the potential of other people into the sense of you. (notice this potential does not have do have anything in common with the idea you have of a particular person) But what you can not do is maintaining communication as possible or non mathematical arguments as meaningful while simultaneously giving up reason with regards to a possible other being, whether or not that being is ultimately the same.

There are two things one can learn in general though by reading in particular, either an explication of something one intuits by default or information which gets classed under such intuition whether that intuition is explicated or not. An historian or a journalist is to the latter what a philosopher or theorist is to the former. Do not expect to represent a theory you have read about as easily as you remember a location for a war, and least of all you must never hope to represent a theory in the same way you were subjected to it first. So far as you are capable of thought you must to that end take all ideas into yourself so readily that a bit of you is never missed when time is come to share it with others. If you do not remember much of what you have read then you hopefully weren't thinking much of what you read either, it can thus be the cause of too little experience. As trough it alone can something so weird as reading start aligning with the natural faculty of thinking which itself is subject to development.

@lxlichael "however the amenability of biological forces have always taken precedence over our bodily reactions, moreover, only a consciousness imbued with the biological power towards the awareness that allows them to transform those forces transmutationally, possesses any real legislative agency over the directionality of their consciousness, egoically, biologically and otherwise." What if instead it is consciousness that is placed wherever these biological forces 'took it' in the past, and that only in the future will there (not by means of consciousness) but inside consciousness occur such a schematic legislation of a will trough the body corresponding to the very same types of biological forces we begun the postulation with? And is it not better to conceive of the bodily reactions and biological forces as integral to a bigger theory of both and that it would be impossible thereby for either to take any form of precedence over the other? That these models have more utility in both predicting the future and speaking of reality as it is conceived of in the mind instead of the opposite on both accounts you have my wholehearted sympathy with, but is it not the actualized ego this all is done for when all is said and done? The actualized ego such that it instead of reality trough it becomes the primary concern in the model itself, one surely could predict that by taking a look in this forum.

Just like all your potential lies inside your limitations, so does the potential of a good conversation lie in the acceptance of also others limitations. We may react in annoyance towards others in their skewed or limited understanding by cringing, but it is always our limits which shines trough to that end. Those signals of annoyance, cringe or irritation are thus reminders that you can be far more then you think you can. Wisdom must not be too different then to an ability to cringe at ourself, so to desert all cringeness in the end.

@Aleister Crowleyy Is it not? What is it then master?