Reciprocality

Two lamps, both of which lights inadequatly for one to focus on that which they presumably both ought iluminate? Interesting problem, find a job.

You say you feel like the emotions have you in their grip, and not by your choice? Where thereby you by some other emotion desire that not to be the case? Will it not be emotions which have you controlled even if your desire were to be fulfilled? Now that absurdity/double negation makes me question the premesis themselves, i for one have many times been sceptical towards my emotions, but in their quality, not their nature. What is an ideal emotion, which you aspire towards having? Is it possible that the guitar is not something you yourself desire mastering, and that you have undermined the "instrument" you actually would've?

They've made him a living martyr now, as though subject to opressive kings he is banished from his first ammendment, they believe. It is dangerous what they've done. As in dangerous on themselves.

@Danioover9000 It is, i believe. But if i were to concede that corporate socialism is right wing it would follow, due to their extreme divergencies that free-market capitalism is not. It is not obvious that there is a bigger difference between Corporate Socialism as enacted in the U. S. and lets say Scandic Social Democracy, than there is between a free-market model and the U. S today. If we ought be, i claim: rational in our argumentation we neccesarily needs give such a free market model some moderation on its own, as is given to the premise regarding the left as a Nordic Model. Where to strike the boundraries of such 'moderation' is surely not a simple task, but i hope it serves the conversation more then a mere begging of questions.

Psychic like in communicating by means *external to the body, the message of which is accidental to immidiate timeframe? I disbelieve the validity of the latter, and are somewhat less scpetical about the former. *external to the body as in by physics the attributes of which is beyond our current understanding. I think it as it is believed by people to be real is delusional, but beyond those "established" delusions i am rather qurious about it.

I believe their economic policy were within a socialist framwork, just like that of the US today, socialism for the rich ofcourse. But the immidiate power-structure is quite alike, only the ends are hardly justified, aswell as impossibly sustainable. (that one serving the wealthy that is) If however one is to argue that indeed it is right wing, then i for one will have a hard time arguing that free-market capitalism is aswell, seeing their structural divergencies.

@Joel3102 | Most of his positions are only left wing insofar as they within his mind is believed as of utility today, It is ambigous therefore to call him left wing in conversations which transcends also those of contemporary utility. If i were a nazi to the core and believed that today we needed republicans over democrats for such a long-term change it would by the same token be ambigous to name me a republican.

It aint a Coup, its a child with its tantrum. The tantrum is even justified, only not for the premesies by which the babies reason. Its a reaction which will only further strengthen the evildoing of U. S. political institutions, in that they become object for solidarity which by extention heightens their approval all around. In a few years when those whose tantrums can be justified also by those having them is storming the capitol you'd see they'd be equated with those of these times, thus having a harder time reaching out and reaching their goals.

You are not god, you live in god, I believe; for we are the mode to its perfection. But if you can live such to experience first hand perfection then reason needs not justify it. Also it can't given the nature of 'perfection', though presumably we are here back at the startingpoint regarding your question of imperfect perfection. Whereby i can not use English to help. Would you be interested however, i could try another time.

Cam / Ry X / XXX / Joji / labrinth / Foushee You'll find the good despairing stuff pretty fast, but here is a favorite from ry x:

@K Ghoul I may be, not by externalities though.

If being the case - the body can be such a fragile little thing.

@Leo Gura what do you think happens to a mere mortal if s/he ate a gallon of 5meo?

If by real we speak synchronic existence, then cause and effect is tautologicaly absurd. But if real is also prior to NOW, then we know no other mode by which to understand anything than the cause to its effect. Even if they are existentialy absurd AS SUCH, they still can be existentialy coherent as mere attributes or essentials. The question is, do you find causes to their effect absurd also as attributes of 1. memory/beliefs or 2. universal/objective manifistations? I dont consider the past real nor existent AS SUCH, but i know the importance of attributing causes to their effect, and you do aswell. Be you claiming otherwise or not. edit: I can know that deductively, as for you to disagree with the validity of cause and effects if them be only attributes you negate your disagreement by manifesting IN THE DISAGREEMENT causes and effects.

Yeah it is lots of fun to look trough the window of the Nineties, the 2090s that is, but it functions on my mind like a calculator does, it gives answers i don't know the value of/to. (not in reality anyway, only in utility)

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.