Reciprocality

@fopylo Yes that is a fair representation, and if my assessment is right then what seems rather paradoxical at first is only causes to their effects. Although these things comes in spectrums i think that what were somewhat a bell'curve at age 2 will trough development tilt more like a M shape, in which the distribution have two chunks of bodies. I would claim that almost all distributions which have a non-bellcurve shape are artificial, and that all artificial distributions are inefficient relative to ideals and that the ideal would constitute a curve back to the shape at age 2. Very much in harmony with ideals of authenticity and the return from the hero's journey, a return 'home' and a return to childhood. I would hesitate to call the people you describe and i analysed as mindful, but to the extent they act easy-going and calm they do not nor have much discovered reason to second guess their algorithm thereto seem as tranquil as anyone. At high school i hung with the 'popular ones' (something i fright back upon) and what were so very curious is that the more self-conscious and second guessing they were speaking to me alone the more calm they were speaking with whichever quantity of many others. This despite how judgmental i never were, they seemingly weren't programmed with an algorithm for questions and answers like mine. Exterior stimuli, lets say a conflicts like rumor and slander can disturb this group of people very much, and it is in like scenarios they can easily be discerned as mindless.

Think about it in its egocentric function, we are all centered around something, this something seems varying to some extent but everyone calls it the self and the ego. When most people, your typical person think about themself they do so regarding how other people percieve them and that becomes their identity. In doing so they seem easygoing and appears calm, sincere and authentic when socializing, now this identity of theirs are already settled and thus their actions can reflect without thought the very past with which their identity at first were designated. This requires very little thinking, it requires very little self-awareness and quriosity. Other again, think about themselves trough introspection, they value and judge for themselves trough which habit they can have minimal understanding of how other people think of them, and although they do not assign other people with the authoirty of being their judge they can not help thinking how they are percieved and understood. And although the latter group must regulate their actions to fit within they grouping they are themselves diachronicaly opposed to the set behaviour as already elaborated on, whether or not they are metacognizant of that or not. To be egocentric/selfcentric is a mode of both groups, its just that they vary so deeply in their constitution. The people you describe are NOT egocentric when socializing (in the act), you are, i am, most people here are. This if because we are thinking and introspecting, we are lesser of a pre-arranged algorithms. And it overwhelms us sometimes, so we self actualize while they're coping silently (now some are not even that). To the latter point, pre-arranged behaviour likely numbed them down, in which sense we can assume they must chase some cheese.

One could almost say: there are reasons these people do not find the self actualization work neccesary, and a reason that you do.

That reality is confined to/as the merging of [form and being] is the very idea which does NOT make people capable of anything, if you by anything speak past the merging of form and willing. If everything emerging is an illusion of consciousness then one is a, yes bear with me: realist, i should even say materialist and reductionist, now i know these things are at odds with some or many written documents on the matter if looked only at the surface (and many times deeper), this is a linguistic problem more than conceptual. (in that we assume so absurdly the meaning of those very words we by the nature of the discussion are supposed to define) Now most of these isms are partially true, but fundamentaly wrong and hillariously absurd, you would be better of thinking by unlearning most of them aleady. The fact that they are (in the context of their history) given credit to academicaly is amusing, in this sense there is no wonder the sciences are eating philosophers alive. Synthesize instead for yourself the implications of there being material form causing being with the "absurdity" of being causing the real world existence. See how i decide not to call it the real world, although that would easily be a suitible description? It is because of the asumptions you make of the set of words which will be rooted right back to 'the material world' AS AN IDEAL.

I'm no big memer so i must ask why does it say "Left" ?

I would not conflate circomstances and placement for compassion, (objects associated with its occurance) with the actual thing itself. In this way i do NOT think compassion is something to be polished, only a growing desire which in its growth do not only have a causal relationship with objects it passes by. Now in the sense that compassion is an act, an occurent energetic transaction it can be polished ofcourse. But these things can even be unrelated to the desire itself. I am sure that compassion CAN, and many times will be growing paralelled with the 'polishing' of actions, but even there i hesitate to point out a cause. Well, i am not so sure how to respond to this but can not deny i enjoy your energy and specificaly the way you understand arrogance, although you seem incredibly self-centric. It does not need to be such an awful thing, and can indeed sort away fragile egos. : )

I (67%) N (90%) F (52%) P (100%) a (72%) INFP-A, i consider myself rather crippled empatheticaly, so it is curious it would place me in the Feeling section. As great as its questions are they definitly do not always scale well, apparently.

@King Merk I think that if one has sufficient reason to be arrogant there is no time left in the day for thoughts so readily obsessed with being the one for which such reasons are subjected. By which logic arrogance could very much be primarily a mask of insecurity as already alluded to by@EddieEddie1995. You forsee humbleness as a potential remedy, but i think also this is silly as a goal in itself. If you are not already humble where it is due, then do not try to micromanage it as though painting a same picture a hundred times, never to be satisfied. Question rather the foundation for the desire for such managing at all, in this i think we can in the power of us being human change the picture from KNOWING its colors. However: maybe the behaviour of yours is not arrogant, that rather it is this idea which comes from fear from being judged. And maybe arrogance is to be desired, and if not neccesaily accepted?

"Those like buttons are a curse upon thinking people", now that is something for the history books

It wont get much better : )

Would be easier to say if the academics and culture of our time were merged with a like material, and their finest assesements could make clear and elucid the way they negate it. If the brightest minds were balls deep in this work the very way (and then some) they are the work of their own, would actualized not be but a thiny first cause in comparison? It seems to me that it is very advanced, but the way it stands so firmly on its own should make one skeptical whether it actually acknowlegde that which it draws upon and analyses for what it is, an illusion of profundity is dangerously easy to be swept by when it has so very little dynamic with its causes. And when we take it upon ourself to be deacons of the analysed it can be a big problem, we are also embodying ourself those externalities to the extent they can be understood from the very beginning, and just like that is the function of development it can also be the issue making us uncertain if we evolved at all. (relative to the understanding of the set externality we ofcourse evolved, question concerns the understanding itself) This dynamic with its causes would really be the point after which its profundity or advancement could be WITNESSED, instead of as of now embodied. The latter point relates the very way this actualized work is exactly the work which makes one question embodyment as a mode of certainty and truth.

@Someone here You can not so readily differantiate between the two when seconds later all which is principles, deduction and thought is definitively philosophy. Especially when in the second comment you refer to philosophy as the study of the contingen fact and objective world as well. Now philosophy is all those things, definitly and by neccesity. Problem occurs when thinking "Philosophy tries to study and understand the fundamental nature of two things: the existence of man.. and the relationship between man and existence." whereby this somehow negates that of the sciences, as well as you (as refered to) in the second comment does not. "Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles.. while science tries to explain based on experiment results" Well it does seem this way, ofcourse until it doesn't. To the very degree scientists are capable of this ideal of yours they have been reduced to machines without scope and aim. The sciences strength is reduced by their epistemology, which by definition makes "That's why science is stronger epistemologically. " absurd. Empiri is emergently as important for philosophy as it is for the understanding of data (sciences), in the very way data is emergently the same for both diciplines to whicever extent they (diciplines) are understood as different. If Science then Philosophy, .. and to the degree this rule does not apply you have replaced man with some platonic machine. (as materialists ofcourse do) Or you have reduced emergence, phenomena and yourself to quality and quantity. All which is said here is emergently as grounded to Empiri as to Principles, to whichever extent the quality of the former is non-formalizable whereby non-inteligable it is not therefore absurd. We can use Sciences to grasp those qualities, each and any of which is causal to interpretation AS philosophy. Implying ofcourse, issues of infinite regression.

@Someone here

What is somewhat ironic is that Philosophy got eaten whole by the sciences the very era in which Verificationism took roots and sought after the sciences as being thought their equal. (and not their superior as it were per then) Very qurious a desire for people claiming truth is that which is accidental to popular opinion.

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.