Reciprocality

I am genuinly confused by what in your comment you would identify with yourself and what you would differantiate as being 'that about which is the common scientific idea concerning philosophy', as they seem to be conjoined on several remarks. "I wanna present to you the core principle that makes science preferable to philosophy these days in approach to knowledge. Specifically to metaphysics. Simply because metaphysical subjects are impossible to prove or to disprove. " Is it impossible to prove to the standards set by you, or the standards of the scientific dicipline? The latter sentence in the quotation above is concieved only trough a principle, the nature of which is metaphysical, primarily beacuse it can itself not be grounded in anything else while simoutaneously being sound. (the way "look when the cars collide it can not possibly be proven nor disproven by which causes they were headed at each other") Either both or neither can be proven, the issue comes when proof is standardised as presicely that which conforms to only one. I think to conflate meaning and knowing is also absurd, by the very standards set by scientism. If it weren't so you would not need to discern between accidental and essential data, i would even say that a sound statement tilts more toward meaninglessness, in that only if ever reached it would be superflous. The verifiability principle actually says that truths of logic alone functions in opposition to meaning as though trough contradiction. In actuality truths of logics has the very same relation to meaning as that of empirical truths, while saying nothing about the way they both relate to confirmation of truth, as certainty. And on the matter of hidden public dialogue concerning Philosophy: "Well that's because we live in a science Era where scientists have took ownership of the issue of knowledge from philosophers for decades by now." Now this i definitley will grant you, to the extent even them can be called philosophers.

''How could I take intellectualizing seriously if questioning the obvious was only to make me look cool?'' Well, i presume you live in a society, in which this desire of seeming cool for your intellect must have been deppresingly badly answered. In my experience it's deemed uncool to question pretty much anything. So your two ideals are essentialy like Harry and Voldemort, as neither can live while the other survives.

I believe the highest value is truth, but more so in the Heideggerian way then scientific. I kind of conceive Dasein as sincerity, and the highest ethic that which acts in its percieved continuity. Seemingly paradoxically I also am a strong proponent of Hume's Law, which says that "you do not get an ought from an is", but more concisely Hume believed that values are subjective and follows no essential law. Which is not to say that the judgement is non existent, but that to attribute existence to the judgement's essence is to absurdly assign it with god-like qualities. Which falls in line with general Empiricism and Scepticism for those interested.

@7thLetter You have been socialized in a society, due to which many or most people act just like you do. No i would rather say have the same focus as you do, the eyeballs can be cause for a repetitive self-conscious behavior in most of us, from very early age. You naturally pick up signals, each and one of which comes entangled with extreme uncertainty as very little in the social sphere is concise, obvious, necessary nor deducible. You are therefore meant to associate your way trough the messiness of human interaction, but you seem to be stuck in the very nature of uncertainty. It is not therefore unreasonable to assume a common denominator between many of the eyes, and as part of being socialized is to not stand out in a group ones derived inclination is to question oneself, and these may follow "Is it the real you the motivation for carrying yourself around like you do?". Which can be further divided to 'Is it with internal acceptance or exterior appeal you are this way?', if the former can be concluded then ask yourself if the exterior reward of undermining your self accepted self outweighs it. If the latter then i will ask you 'have you tried walking the room without also the construction of the walk, in that you simply accepted the natural form it for what it were?' If no then try it and see what may happen.

Intelligence won't escape us any time soon, it is a topic to push many egomaniacs away and others to entice. When that is understood and deliberately subverted the time will come for the actual conversation. There will be a bell curve to any specific intelligent feat, there will also be one for the generalities all those in-between. And to the parts of true dissension: those two will overlap dramatically. Then there is the unpolished measurement unit, called in short "IQ", this will be its own kind of overlap (far from perfect although dramatically similar). Now all this is valid to the degree intelligence is understood by those measuring it, and there is reason to believe that also here there will be a dramatic overlap between "actuality" (an amusing thing to have in quote, but so to signify its ideal properties) and the scientific practice. If everyone used their brain properly whereby IQ gets challenged to the limits of its current validity i think there would be 'geniuses' in every fourth or fifth household. And to the topic: short term memory in linear and/or deductible thinking is like gasoline on ones fire for many modes of intelligence, this superpower you need not imagine nor verify any further, you know its qualities simply by writing your post in that by reading it after writing it you are directly aware of far more things about it than you would be simply by closing your eyes. (potentially also will you your brain in that consciousness make connections between the different areas of your already written words you would not be able to without it, although this divergence will get minimized the stronger your intuitive faculties are). Actual intuition tho, a property of intelligence like no other comes in such potency that any one experiencing it should simultaneously see the absurd and extreme implications to its pinnacle of human distribution. If you read the best works i philosophy for example, you will start to understand thing you would not left to your own momentarily devices, and that i would argue is practical answer to your question. Then you have the process of association, which i would formalize as the glue to all intelligent and rational undertaking, and is especially relevant to both the construction and entanglement of logical absurdities.

Nowadays i no longer need to justify my ethics, as i have come to find i never could justify any of it, only connect causes to effects and act congruently, of course until the exceptions emerge in existence which before it i could not even attribute an essence. Suicide is a being ending itself, but it is in what the action itself IS NOT but in its context we can make rationals, ideas and theories regarding the oughts and oughtn'ts of the action. And thereto judge them by means of our values (wherever they may be acquired). What do you believe happens if you made it an end today? Or rather, what won't happen? Let us piece out some effects to their causes without fooling ourselves they came justly.

"I’ve begun to realize that everything I see, hear, feel, smell, taste, touch, feels like I’m experiencing it right in the “middle” of the awareness." If you by the middle mean focus then you are saying that the object is in focus by the subject, as obvious as that is written down like that it sure works in a way which confuses a mere human. We define awareness as whatever is conjoined with the 'middle' i believe you speak of, and as such what you said is a logical necessity or as they say: by definition.

The CNN talkshows all day, superb journalism

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by Hume is golden, search it, open a pdf and read. : )

"System" is as ambigous a term as "thought", the reason such avoidance of specificity has utility in this specific context is precisely because thought aswell as system gets in the realm of 'holonism' a new set of contrasting element. If that which before (system) were 'all-inclusive' now gets a relative value in its relation to something outside it whereby a new superset of "all-inclusivity" will emerge, then follow along. The 'holonistic' experience is by its nature first this new thing outside 'systems' but by the same nature it is also the system which preceded it, again only so far as the former is a part of the latter. Conclusively you can confuse systems for holons, thus disregarding the logic by which the system got its relative value in the first place. Google 'isomorphism', it is to my understanding a simple mathematical version of holonism (certainly what regards the mapping of territories, if not also the territory) whereby radically divergent layers of expressions can share commonality also in their (seeming and actual) mutual exclusivity. You can of course also choose to call it all a system, as would I in many instances, but do not be fooled believing that somehow undermine the difference those instances in between. And primarily what those instances reflects.

You want advices for how to appriciate being the hunter although you are nothing like one? I think i see some of your problems but they wont get solved to the extent i answer these questions. What is your natural inclination towards a woman you have met? Is this inclination not a manifistation of something about yourself you do not will into being? I will say yes, whereby you are destined to action. What do you desire that action to be? If you are not a 'hunter' from nature then why fool yourself thinking it will help you decieving women that you are? I must admit i may be the confused one here, but let's see.

I see the SD Model have gone right over just another sets of heads. A scenario in which one stands disaffected being assaulted by some thugs after a failed persuasion to peace would indeed be an unhealthy one at that, and likely more often represented in Green then in other stages. Its a shame you can not fit the pieces such to see nothing in that negates @Sempiternitys proposition.

It is correct that it does not mean that we can KNOW that there is NO objective existence, but with it does not follow the negation. Meaning we can not know there is that object outside in its own reality as a seperate entity, although we may believe it does. (or we may believe in the concept of it, for again we are bound to the mind)

Question is, what is better?

@WonderSeeker yes indeed

In any placement of discourse there will over time entail a prescriptive concurrence of kinds, this specific discourse tries brutally to get ahead in that. And that can not be but interesting, it is the system we depend upon, and always have. Necessarily, as we weren't 'we' before it. With regards to its specific modus operandi i am intrigued, as it diverge from others periodically alike in the form that it takes. There is much for me to love in it, and much for me to ignore. My relationship to it is alive, although i look forward to new times.

I must say its kind of hillarious that i messed up the actual word itself in my analysis of it.

I think that in the very nature of this concept inlies the method of learning it. If a subject within an envirement deals with a set of obstacles which is not the very groundwork for the evolusion of it then there is neccesary a superstructure of maluability in the subjects which survive and functions in that envirement (and across several potential other ones) Another word for such maluability is the quantity of ways one or several issues can be solved. As determined by some mean or median of puzzlesolving, or 'general inteligence' as within humans. So if you desire to understand the concept (the way i understand it) which i probably don't regarding the specifics of the field, then i reccomend searching for prerequesite variety in your own very ways of learning. The pragmatics of which consists of first-principled derivatives/conclusions and to a lesser degree a books with other's answers.

A civilized but brutal fighter. A comic. An activist. Someone wiser, atleast someone to look up to for primarily her/his wisdom. An unintentional rebel in their genuine artistry, some poet so potent as to be blind to their own brilliancy.

I don't believe in real deaths, i actually find those oxymoronic. I believe death is unreal, or rather absurd. But only absurd as far as phenomena/experience goes. Which i anyway find myself contingent upon, so therefore death is an absurdity. To think about it is an absurd act, as to think about it is nothing like it, and at the same time the thought about it is (presumably) its only essence. Which may even give rise to its only existence, which again is absurd. Seeing that it then exist as the opposite of what it "were to be".

"Inclusiveness, everyone gets an opportunity Don’t exclude anyone Tolerance" Green actually takes a far stronger stance against inclusivity (as such) then the stage before it, rightfully, thankfully, neccesarily. 'Far from everyone gets an oppertunity' would be a more like it. Interestingly enough that is but an outcome in the orange societies, and never an axiom as it is in the green.

So to answer what i think you ask: Write down your rationale, your reason regarding a certain topic and analyse over time how your emotions diverge from the set structure, and how your reason will be subject to an absurd mutation or alternation, the nature of which forms in the commence of the former, the emotion. That emotion is likely functioning as a desire, ideal or identity.

It is impossbile yo lie to yourself, if the self of the lies are to be considered the same. As what constituates a lie is the divergency between ones belief/knowledge and what one COMMUNICATES those to be. I will grant you that a part of the self indeed does communicate with a same part, but it can not possbily communicate to itself that which negates its belief. It is however: possible to deny one's better judgement, in that the judgement is seperated from YOU.

Norway, north-west Europe

The survival of our kind depend upon the stupidity of our time. Does not mean we will survive, but it means that it aint us who are surviving if without the stupidity we survive.