Reciprocality

I wrote this in the hope that the reader would want to investigate why someone would make the claim that the former questions can actually be answered, and that they will see thereby far more clearly why the last question is the existential question.

@Chadders Is it the case that the more we appreciate a meal the less we require to eat it every week? If we appreciate going to the beach how often must we do it until the law of diminishing return kicks in and disables us of appreciating it as much? Is there a chance that our neediness for being socially involved with other people is subject to the same equation?

Interesting questions from here are the following: Is the formation of concept from memory a relation of necessity (sufficient reason, necessitated effect) or do we need teleology to bridge the gap? And if there can be found no argument for that necessity pertaining to the phenomena of that formation and the identities involved could a theory on extra-phenomenal substances function as sufficient reason? And also, if the relation between memories and concepts are one of necessity as well as operating linearly in time then how could that not be a continuum, and if it is a continuum how can something which is dual to discreteness involve discrete or time-less entities such as concepts?

Take every duality in your mind, they reflect something that is dual prior to the mind, not in a discrete way, but in a continuous way. The more acute your memory the more you partake in that continuum as opposed to their chopped up counterpart, allowing you to imagine things that people for whom those dualities are the very means to achieve their personal goals are incapable of.

Reality are dualities, all you can do is reject them, but they will always precede your rejection and even be the reason it is possible to reject them in the first place there are three kinds of duality the first is the duality in each continuum of extension, such as motion then there is the duality of the presence and absence of a thing thirdly there is the duality of an identity (x) and the generalisation of the absence of all particular identities (non-x). the two former kinds becomes the same upon reflection but are always distinct in perception, the third kind arises from the recognition of how you can only achieve the absence of a thing through motion and only achieve motion through the absence of a thing, since the two are in fact identical there must arise something outside them that is aware that they appear different, thus the time-less, extension-less and motionless duality of identity and non-identity arises. Then all sorts of dualities can take form, from reflection upon the presence and absence of co-inciding items of perceptions be it colour, temptations or emotions, and just like that does our innate nature become our personality, our existence.

@Chadders We do need people in our lives and we can not change that part, but that hardwired need is often minuscule in comparison to our habits. I am pointing out that when we get used to something over a timespan of years and decades we become more needy than we are hardwired to be and that removing ourself from that situation can make us appreciate each interaction more and in the end allow us to be less needy again.

But what if it can be changed? What if the neediness has been built up over a period of years and decades and the baseline for excitement and stimuli has been raised way beyond what we should own?

@What Am I I see how what I did could obfuscate from talk about the mystical experience of white light, but its actual intension is the opposite, to show you why that experience may be white or that it is not by accident. But to regard it as breaking down the words involved seems to be a fallacy of misplaced concreteness or simply semantic fallacy.

@What Am II see the resemblance, unfortunately not from the angle at which it becomes comedic, likely because appearances deceive and my assertions can be affirmed at a level where no appearences are needed. I don't take offence, but I wonder why the actual meaning of my assertions did not interest you enough to look past their goofy appearance.

Since the following sprung out of and stands in direct continuation to the OP concerning god and whiteness Ill allow myself to post it here even though it does not directly (possibly indirectly though) address the correlation between god and whiteness. That which makes white opposing transformations also makes it prone for its own transformation, it opposes the transformation from light to heat for the same reason that it can more easily itself transform into a colour that makes light transform into heat at a higher rate. If we abstract from the above: That which attributes is opposed to external changes will itself change more easily than that which attributes is not opposed to external change. This principle can be validated fairly well without science and almost merely a priori by investigating how if the inverse were true then certain substances would never change, but in reality everything substantial changes given sufficient time. (some things do not change but they are insubstantial, such as time, space and concepts, they are all accidents (inessential to) of substance, yet necessary compliments to them).

It goes far deeper though, and not by accident. White is more present in things that gives potential for something else or that is a building block for something that emerges from it, take flour or bone for example, or cut a seed or any sufficiently robust plant in half. Why does a colored chewing gum get more white as you stretch it? Because it reflects light more perfectly via a smoother surface, smoothness surely exemplifies neutrality. Clouds are whiter the less dense the water it consists of is, allows for more perfect throughput of light, perfection is one of gods neutral attributes. Colours cancels one another out and create white light, when two things of a proportionate power meet you get neutrality. We thusly wave a white flag when we are near defeat in battle, we neutralise ourself. Potentiality and neutrality are highly correlated with white and are even more correlated with god.

White are the backgrounds for our drawings, drawings are positive, white therewith exemplifies the negative or here: neutrality. God is the reason we give for why something that we believe did not have to exist exists non the less, that reason must at least have a neutral appearance since otherwise it would in some sense be a part of that world which it is the reason for, and if we investigate the behaviour of nature and all its necessary causal relations we may say that god is neutral in every single way. God is not white, but white is to other colours what god is to us.

I would insist on using a new angle on the situation which does not distinguish people who are anxious in relation to others from people who are not, the concept of "social anxiety" is mostly cultural and cultural concepts does what humans are evolved to do: compare people. It actually confuses the real problem to compare yourself with those who do not have the anxiety you have, which I believe you do and so by necessity. The real problem is what other humans actually are in relation to you, which I can describe very simply, they are a year-deep mirrors into yourself within timespans of seconds, their fascial expressions and situational reactions are instantiations of what you call reality, and this reality is what you are. Edit: I get nauseated just thinking about having people around me, and it is obvious to me that it is because there is simply too much information, too many possibilities there, things becomes too real real quick and I can only handle so much reality at a time.

To try to compensate for this weakness there is only one possible method and we have engaged in it our whole life, it is to abstract from our experience of others characteristics which we embody until we have a sufficiently strong imagination of it, sees it for what it is and no longer fit into it. (we can not fit into a portion of ourself forever)

Something is more real than our imagination, without which we would not have an imagination or even identify something as imagination, that real thing is what we are and we are never able to imagine it. This is the necessary weakness and frailty individuals must have for them to evolve to be dependent on groups and without which the species could not stand sufficiently strong together. The strength of civilisation would never happen without the weakness of not being able to imagine oneself and instead only ever being able to be oneself (which is what we call reality).

The intensity of reality and the tendency of humans is implied right there in the overlap between your and others universal. You can identify the things that do not have any exceptions as easily as you identify things that has many exceptions if you know to separate identities from their objects. You may come to find universals as personal continuums that returns to you and then diminishes just like any other oscillation, it is precisely in the moment when you question whether the universal is the same for others that human general fixation and reality are distinctly seen as one and the same thing, it is here where you know that everyone else is virtually identical to you. You can thereby analyse your environment without using mental language. Your language is most of your self identity, in ways you may not be aware of, thinking in the above way costs you a lot of that identity. We may say Like James Gibson that reality is a set of affordances. There are limits to possibilities, and we could not possibly be anything else than we are because every particular variation of perception is like the outermost branches of the same tree, we do not get to know anything more than we already are because what we are is the substance of our knowledge, like the tree is the substance of its branches. We are completely separated, and that would be impossible if we weren't also identical.

Every person is a unique way of seeing things, but we can not afford taking on their whole way of seeing, and they can not afford seeing only in their own way. The result is deflationary but inherent uniqueness in the respective social structure, this uniqueness in neither active/offensive nor reactive/defensive. There will also often be contrariant uniqueness to that structure, this uniqueness must be both offensive and defensive. Why? A sport championship of nations is hardly much followed from the purely aesthetic pleasures, people whose country represent them often follow their nation closely, they know of a world outside their own and want their own inherent uniqueness to win attention. In purpose. In a dynamic of nations there is active and reactive contrariety, manual and automatic. In effect. The purpose does not match the effect, only authoritarian love ask to be returned. Love is being yourself, not losing yourself, but to be yourself without contrariety you have to lose the method that makes you approachable for others, this method is contrariant identity, a constant abstraction of others.

@Ishanga I see, you want to experience all colors but your actions don't reflect it because you are not sufficiently committed? Maybe you want to want to experience all colors, if so, why? And if so, isn't it your self identity which expresses its love when though it knows it cant have everything it wants to want everything?

@Ishanga If Sadghurus notion of a transparent state would solve this problem, why is it a natural inclination for most human beings to develop a stable and rigid non-transparent sense of self precisely to solve that very problem, who often also solves it. Compare for instance the fragmented behaviour of a child with the rigidity of an adult.

@Ishanga Some could do that while others could not. Those who could go into virtually any culture and enjoy it would do so but not through their self-identity, that is what you say, correct? If that is so, leaving aside that I don't think it is true that they love outside their self-identity, how does it work that they can enjoy that other culture, what explains it and how does that explanation relate to their own self-identity and the reason it exists?

@Ishanga Appreciate the relevant post, but are you really engaging any of my premises, questions or assertions directly? Do you want me to decipher whether there is a contradiction between the meaning of sadghurus conception of a transparent state and the meaning of my conception of a state of loving self-identity? Or otherwise whether the two are compatibly speaking about the same subject or unproblematically speaking about two different subjects?

How do we love beyond our own identity? I think I fail that massively every day. When is the last time you did that?

To love sincerely we must show up to life like a sports fan shows up to an international game, we must show our country without needing others to see what we have shown them, isn't it. The question is how much is there to show?

The relevant buzzwords becomes cliche, and cliche happens because of the borrowed future inherent to language and human opportunism, thus the tendency for these undying words to be associated with their feigned use. Dignity Resilience Tolerance Animated Energetic Present Measured Enjoying Living Being ^They are perennial, wouldn't their significance change for those people who instead of experiencing the world through the needle of comparison, that tendency which always reflects most intensely their individuality, the coherence of the whole individual, started seeing distinct things as aspects of the same?

We spontaneously attribute properties to distinct things from comparing them, but only if we spontaneously fix on their sensorial difference. What does it take to see two very distinct items as the same, assuming there is anything similar between them? Our proclivity to attribute distinct properties to distinct things which goes beyond their sensorial distinctness is in one way identical between us all, but in another way takes on a different character between us all. Other people can consistently see the coherence between the character that judgement takes and our personal character, in fact they can see it as the surest thing in the world. We can say with confidence then that our personal character is the sufficient reason not for those distinct properties but for our attributing them. What happens if this proclivity of judgement, this spontaneity always reflecting the coherence of the individual person, suddenly ceased? Surely sufficient distinctness is a sensorial business, while sufficient similarity is a memorial one? In either case spontaneity is the arbiter, becomes translated into intelligibility, natural semantics. The distinctness of the two items in our senses is fixed on, they coincide in our consciousness, our ideas subsume them equally spontaneously, would we have reason to question our judgement if it happens by itself, without any conceivable hidden motive? For two very distinct items to be seen for their similarity, as then a first reaction to them, something must have changed in the character of the one who otherwise attributed ideas to their distinctness. My questions: 1. what must change in the character of such a person who at first impression sees the king and the beggar as similar? 2. what is different in a) our process of fixing on the concepts or ideas which depicts those similarities between those very different things and those concepts or ideas which depicts their difference? How does either of these mental representations relate to our culturally inherited semantics, how do they relate to the world, which are like diamonds surviving a hundred generations of force and which disintegrated in a generation or two?