Reciprocality

That may be the dividing line between a fulfilled life at 30 or a suicidal one, the angst with which our subliminal mind percieves our scandalous endevours in our twenties.

I may give an answer of my own later, until then i wanna appeal to some authority, thus i welcome you to read ''Ethics'' by Spinoza. He may argue for the absurdities of your position, or he may strenghten them all, or certaintly not all.. but the one at hand.

right on : )

Could our rationale ever do anything else then reason its way backwards from emotions, and could anything else then reason be the result of emotions? Next only to *senseorial sensations? Which reason neccesarily is the derivative of. Could we reason and deduce an emotional conclusion? Would appriciate any response : ) *senseorial sensation sounds like "beautiful beauty", but it were to specify those senses like vision, taste, physical pain etc, and not those of thought and emotion.

The U.S prison system sounds like some life-altering challange, many guys would go out of there respecting themselves more, others not so much.

@Nahm Haha well thank you, but i explicitly stated why i wrote as i did, you even quoted that part. Even tho it IS the same as "beautiful beauty" i used it to make an important distinction. To distinguish the means from the end, only with the openness to the means also BEING an end in itself. Words meaning can be manipulated so to express new meaning, and hopefully the reciever get its meaning, and if he don't he can ask why. Edit, not merely asking why but aksing for clearification.

By that logic you are the one conflating the sensation of sounds/vision with that of reason.

I've had some experiences, they stick for 1/5 seconds. I've cried and been incedibly touched by some of them, i would conceptualize them as "disbelief" sometimes i say to myself "this is insane, this can not be real" "how, how" at the mere insanity of life being even a possebility. One time it did come to me for a minute or two, not quite non-dual, but certaintly not strictly dual as my homeostasis. I know many people meditate or take drugs for these experiences, mine came either random or from deep thoughts, do anyone have experiences with the emphasis of "disbelief", or any altered states without ever meditating or taking drugs at all? Would appriciate any answer.

@Origins: "Of course, true over-intellectualisation is probably simply a lack of perception because once the ability to perceive the right lens through a perspective shift or say a logical deduction then the need for intellectualising that phenomenon ceases. " Wherever one draws the line of “over-intelectualization” it needs be where it functions (due to some relational incentive) as an end in itself, instead of the means it started as. If you take the incentive out of that equation you will stand left with that exact dichotomy of “reason and emotion” as we discussed earlier, for again, without the incentive reason would be the synchronical ‘rock bottom’. The need to intellectualize that specific phenomenon do cease to exist, but seeing that we are these spontaneous creatures that in our innocence will make new problems to solve, we by proxy of this new NEED will spin and intellectualize that very phenomenon yet again, I believe. And potentially when some line of thought derivative of that ‘phenomena of which truth we thought we could be certain’ gets contradictory we will go all the way back and spin on it again. Maybe due to less than ideal memory, or maybe due to the actual invalidity of the phenomenon. This can be one of many ways to for example interpret “frenzy”. Set theoretical it seems rather obvious that such ‘non-validity’ or uncertainty will elicit harsh reactions, seeing that subset 3.1 to 3.126 could be erroneous for the simple missteps in set 1 or 2. It may be those reactions we try to impede, now the paradox is that the next moment we gloss over some other uncertainty. (now it is only a real paradox for the one believing he is fundamentally ‘rational’. @Origins: Visual Illusions, are the horizontal lines parallel or do they slope? My answer to this question has within it again the cognizance of “diachronical/synchronical”, the subliminal faculty of sense-making which process I can not reach simultaneously says that the lines slope, the degree to which I am aware of how to make sense of the figure tells me those lines are perfectly symmetrical to all others and perfectly horizontal as well. In direct awareness I find the former to be valid synchronicaly, for I have no past and future to contrast it with, it has no subset nor category to fit in. Then I put those limited parts of the figure that I understand in relation to each other, and deduce from there how the position of both sets of colors as well as the geometrical relation those squares in between to make an illusion of slopes. But then again, the process is not necessarily the totality nor the essence of the moment, begging the question of potential emotions. @Origins: “And I see these descriptions here as convergent divergent abilities rather than divergent abilities onto themselves, something that I’ve only now just described for the first time to myself. “ That is certaintly one way to explicate it, although it presumably leaves out parts of the totality of the conversation, that is those parts which have to do with ‘ends in themselves’, ‘sensations without predicates’ ‘first principles’ etc. @Origins: “what’s popular in mainstream psychology is to equate passages of thinking as either divergent or convergent, I’d like to suggest at least two more possibilities, that is divergent convergence and convergent divergence with the latter here representing what I’ve shared in this comment, that is, the ability to divergently shift between perspectives within the same broad lens, pure divergence to contrast as an example would be like the relationship between broad lenses or aspects of a broad lens with things outside of the broad lens “ So if I understand you correctly “convergent divergence” as the structure of thought which within it relies on predicates as Kants “a posteriory” so to elicit form there previously developed patterns? Perhaps also known as accommodation, or I would call it “open-ended accommodation”. And Divergent Convergence as the structure of thought which within is relies on Kants “a priory” so to elicit (presumably) ‘artistic’ modes of reason, ‘novel’ modes of reason? Alternatively even value theoretical believes? This would be virtually opposite of “assimilation”, so something in mine our yours reasoning is probably of, although not neccesarily. Or maybe it is not that far of the assimilation-process at all, i am poorly read on psychology unfortunatly, i mostly take everything on first principles and read whatever is neccesary from there. Usually i find academic conclusions rather "static" so that may be the reason.

To cherish also the catagorical, not merely the specific. To contribute to the width of knowledge and theory, not only the depth. Alternatively: to contribute to breaking points BETWEEN fields, lets say you lived your whole life doing nothing amazing in the field of psychology nor in the field of neuroscience, but you contributed to the "hard problem" in between so to revolutionize the scientific depth of the nature of 'consciousness' and merging two fields together. That would be the quintesential polymathic act. But normaly it is considered when one contributed to several fields, i would consider Chomsky for example a modern era polymath with his contribution to Linguisitcs and Political theory, and to lesser extents Psychological theory, philosophy and metascience.

Indeed, "life is impossible", "life is impossible", and again and again, as though one became lucid in a dream. "This dream is impossbile only what it seems to be". I think your thought here are hitting the bullseye, so thank you. @Nahm

@Michal__ Ok maybe i was being a bit uncharitable.. But the mode in which you find SD relating to fighting is erroneus in my mind, and if you would adress my previous point regarding that it would be great!

Is it not the most beautiful of sports? Do we in the actualized community have anybody active or previously active in it that want to share some insights on the emotional aspect of it? The satificational aspects of such pre historic actions as to go ALL-INN for the kill? I dream of finding myself a decent mma team/gym to practise with one day, and are really qurious on anyones thoughts on the sport. I've seen it posted in the "red" SD thread, but would contest with that idea.. In its purest form it is waaay more primal, though the incentives and underlying motive for most fighters are red aswell as orange, but the act as it stands by itself and void of all presumable reason is pure art, the most primal of art. Likely rather beige.

Is it me you refer to? In any case i appriciate the sentiment, and i believe the model is designed and will show utility in being used for the opposite: encouraging conscious enough people to integrate those parts about them which have been undermined for so, so long. @Carl-Richard

Good point, and i will agree, psychology can only by means of the scientific method do so much, to ultimatley call it by a name of "diagnosis" does me no harm, but i think as you may allude to that psychology should take some responsebility not dogmatizing everything which strike their first instinct "less then ideal". For many may find it tyranizing. But again, the diagnosis as i read about it seem relatively simmilar to my experiences.

1. Obviously, 2. Yes, 3. First sentence: yes, second sentence: do not see the relevance, 4. first sentence: what does that mean? second sentence: what? I think i will give up on this dialogue, unless you read and respond to that which is written in previous comments. ? Edit: if we only speak past eachother that is also fine.

Okay, so then i need to first say how i see enlightenment. I think the metaphysical implications of turquoise enlightenment are plausible, but i do not believe those implications still, neither do i have disbelief of it. What i do believe is that the epistemic parts about it is valid, so that a man indeed in his enlightenment are radicaly more conscious then other people, especially in those peak moments. Aswell do i believe that these non-dual trips filled with sensations of infinite love etc. will be of immense value to humanity in the hundreds of years to come. Now to the question: i think these states of mind can be achieved without meditation and pshycodelics (to lesser extents), but radicaly rare. Still i would not believe that those experiences neccecitates the many conclusions i have seen for example Leo draw. But again, many of which i find plausible and not contradictory to my own believes. (but i can obviously not now believe everything which i do not find contradictory to my believes hitherto, or rather: non-contradiction do not neccesitate knowledge nor believes)

That were a typo, meant the opposite 'Synchronical', which i define as: "that which can be said about a specific accidental to its relational past and future" (Here Hume and some other empericists would claim that relation can never really be said to be but a mere "connexion" . If it were NOT accidental to the specific's past and future i would call it a subset within a diachronical 'whole', or rather simply diachronics. If reason were to be itself synchronical i would claim that the road from there to justifying reason as something MORE then that which justify emotion, would not be far. But than again, it could be that it is such only by proxy of being yet another emotion as you elaborated on above. Yes indeed it is under-appriciated, and ufortunatley those of us who do sense these things may not be adequatley verbaly proficient so to make explicit sense of it to themselves, non less communicating it to others. Its great that you saw a new angle to the issue, if i myself could be said to have a passion it is for those trees which have been "hidden" all along and suddenly become clear as day.

Finally! And i agree! Everything you said is right on, but i still want to give philosophy all that i have, and why i raised the question if reason could be itself a "synchronical" sensation, and why i see all philosophy and reason as mere incentives to justify emotion. : D Thank you for the respone, appriciate the depth! Edit, i would not see it as the "mistake" of philosophy, the mistake would rather be to the extent one have too high expectations of the utility by which philosphy and reason can justify emotion.

@Michal__ Seeing that purple people indeed do not have red in them how come purple people fight? How come Chimps fighs? Its dominance, a hierarchical structure, and i can sure tell you those chimps are not red. To reconcile this you find mma (in its act) far more primal, and indeed it is, for its the instincts making us survive millions to hundreds of millions years prior to any "red". Now that is the specifics of the act, with regards to the generals of peoples consciousness it would be fallacious to from there deduce them being of any specific consciousness. The professionals COULD be a group destributed primarily around the red end of things, but evidence have shown tendencies to quite the countrary. Some people usage of SD in this thread shows how corrupted such models gets pretty fast. I seek integration of my animal instincts, for in all our lives they are undermined to extreme extents as means to civilization, this is what the model can help a man with.

Yes, you've got it Paul! But what remains is a conclusion, a belief. Eternal recurrence is a derivative of your realization, what do you think about that?

Should try Sam Harris instead, you may need to settle with mere thought experiments, but who knows what may come of it.

Thank you lots, and yes that it indeed could be. You know the reaction you have when someone say something incredibly random? Something not relatable at all? The sensation feels like that reaction, only it FEELS like everything is that "randomeness". And usually it dies of in the matter of seconds. It is very intense.

go for it!

An honest and sincere confrontation seems in its place, i plan on moving out myself, but the time do not seem quite right. Maybe it is smart as Pretty_India adviced: to wait if of?