Reciprocality

Are there not parts in a combustion engine which are less essential than others? Does not some parts of the combustion itself emerge from other more homogenous or invariant parts that could produce many other emergent effects besides combustion? Wouldn't you prefer to lose 2 fingers instead of 3? 1 hand instead of 2? Weren't every word you expressed here distilled into the finest essence of things from thousands of years of linguistic evolution, implying hierarchy in the order of natural language? Natural order?

It may turn out that the damage is already done, that unless one preserves the independency of every identity by not associating it to any other, even those it correlates with in time and space, then motivation instead of insight will guide its application so that the mind has no reason to change direction. The efficiency of good insight and awareness of the world is inversely proportionate to the tendency of association between distinct things, thus if a desire is remembered upon the sound of a word (such as the desire for political victory when hearing the word "liberal" or "conservative" then the mind is already cognitively impaired in relation to that topic. edit: The more immense the association the more impaired the concept, the self is apt for association thus the more immense the self the less distinct your thoughts.

When you listen in on a podcast or video don't you find that the remembered item in conversation is highly correlated with the intonation and rhetorical efforts of the agent? That there rarely is any memory there unless it serves the purpose that this intonation and rhetorics implies? What is the implication if not that the memory that couples with a given subject is that about the lived experience of the agent which conforms to its motivation? How could an agent change their perspective if the very mechanism which allows them to remember something is that perspective, how would they be able to change perspective without a corresponding memory? If we could be reasoned into something that negates fundamental values or beliefs it would suggest that fundamental values were secondary to reason. If on the other hand reason were dependent on the clarity or distinctness of the identity of concepts and these concepts would need to leave their invisible dwelling place in the mind where all its associations or known use cases also lies then unless all those associations were brought along then surely pointing out an inconsistency here and a fallacy there would not suffice to decouple those associations.

Reality is a personal engagement and a personal abstraction that pertain to every particular thing but its identity appear to never be contradicted by any of these particular things, the items of perception. How would it be possible to infer anything about other peoples reality-concept if it never even appears to us that it could be different from our own via how every single experience is consistent with out own reality-concept? I can not see the world beyond the way in which its various items becomes the same reality I have always imagined. It really follows that I can not be other than who I am, but also that I cant not be me. But if by some weird inquiry, deduction or contemplation we could reach the ways in which others reality is or has to be, then how would we succeed at that? If that which is the same in all of us could be pinned down, distinctly identified, how would we succeed with doing so, how could we avoid that line of thought turning recursive or self-referential? And if we can not avoid that self-reference problem then could that actually imply that reality is the same thing for all of us? edit: a few imprecisions.

@Spiritual Warfare It appeared in the OP that you want more than you have and even more than you can have, it implies that you are someone who does not have enough and that what you want is itself more than enough. You also say that you want to know the truth, which implies that your knowledge reveals to you its own limits, but what if this too is impossible and that your desire for the truth is more-so a reflection of your desiring than the truth itself, just like above?

@Sugarcoat Or what if the main point means the purpose of the post and that purpose could only be revealed in the answers to the questions I asked?

@Sugarcoat Are there always main points? I am saying several coherent things, and since the concept of a "main point" and "coherence" have a very similar relation to their respective compliments such as "subservient points" and "several inputs" the coherence should answer your question. I could state their coherence directly, it would require overly abstract language, and it would be somewhat like putting the cart before the horse. The coherence of many things can be elucidated by mutual exploration and exemplification, if your question couples directly to something I said it should have a higher chance of me providing a good answer.

Take one day at the time, and if that becomes depressing take one hour at the time... or five minutes? or 5 seconds? Unless your problems are physical pain then they are connected to your memories, and the further ahead you are looking into things the deeper into your memories you access your thinking.

When is falsity admissible or search for truth not preferable to it? We often think that we should believe what is true, but can it sometimes be more important to a) have a belief than b) ones beliefs being true if sufficiently tested? Perhaps even if that belief is very rigid or inflexible, can it still be more important than the truth? Could a false belief open up for more truths than a true belief? Which would then tend to be more important, do we have a metric to determine so?

I do not get it, why is all this stuff here, I have all these cartoons that helps me explain it, but those cartoons explains only how these things interrelates. Why is the stuff here in the first place? The only reason the keyboard I am typing on don't blow my mind is that I am familiar with it, when I look at it there is memory, when I touch it there is memory, but it is not memory, so what is it and does it end? If it could end then wouldn't there have to be someone there to experience the experience going away?

I am afraid of attachment to perspectives, I see everything from as many perspectives as I can, so much so that if I do not have a perspective I become rather paralysed. This tendency that perhaps others on the forum can relate to can be seen as a discomfort with ambiguity as much as it can be seen as comfort with ambiguity. The multiplicity of perspectives enables me to accurately richly predict certain outcomes, what I am wondering is how do you deal with being unable to act when you do not have a distinct idea of what the consequences will be, have you found any consistent patterns associated with that situation? Have you for example found that being more attached to a particular perspective helpful to deal with the paralysis? The reason I ask is that I would like to gather some concrete real world anecdotes on similar situations. edit: a few inaccuracies.

@Atb210201 Certainly important values in some ways, but does that address the topic? And couldnt an immense mixture of love, peace and calmness contribute to perplexity, confusion and the form of decision paralysis I try to hint at?

@HojoThe last couple of months I have integrated far more of the outside, with apparent positive effects on my well being. And unless you meant something else by the quoted segment then I think this suggestion does not apply to my situation. In the context of the unquoted part of the reply I can definitely see the method you suggested in the quote as being an effective survival-strategy, but I am more talking about a multiplicity of perspectives on the world somewhat akin to what you can read in Keryo Koffas post.

@Leo Gura So right now I am unable to imagine concrete examples of the paralysis that happens when too many perspectives interferes with the decision making process, which is almost self-referential. I imagine that the failure of providing examples of the very problem I am contending with implies that I have falsely identified the problem itself, but another perspective tells me that not all problems can be reduced to a concrete level of information-exchange and that this could be one of those situations. Another perspective tells me that to even ask for concrete examples is ridiculous in this context and another perspective tells me that someone may think that it is ridiculous to think that it is ridiculous. If you consider this reply to be a decision then it funnily answers your question, especially if you consider that I almost did not post it at all.

Id prefer both Krishnamurtis, to my memory Mooji do not go very deep into why the mind is so occupied with all kinds of motives and fantasies, am I mistaken? Where as Jiddu could not fixate more on those kinds of questions. Mooji is mostly trying to produce the effect of no-self in the listener by providing a momentary space for it, I am doubtful as to how effective it can be. Edit: however, his energy is lovely, almost too lovely.

Everyone who both knows that they actually know very little and wants to expand their knowledge must have a strong ego, because besides the receiver of knowledge only the ego can make what is chaotic and disintegrated coherent and there is no expanding of knowledge in a disintegrated and chaotic state. Don't we reject everything that we don't know? How would we stand in relation to the things we do not know if we neither tried to learn it nor rejected it?

@Joshe Yes I am talking about this closeness too, but I am also paying attention to how the thing that the baby is close to is a multitude of stimuli, and I believe the closeness to that stimuli would be no issue if it weren't for how many different things that multitude consists of. The multitude of stimuli, particularly the stimuli of the eye, share no identical properties until they are put in motion thus sharing the property of relative movement. The emptiness is not in the stimuli itself but in the perspective on it (the perspectives are absent or empty). It may be excruciating pain indeed for the baby to not see the connection between things, if the child is young enough the blue on the wall and the white in the ceiling are as disconnected as communism and libertarianism. When after weeks or months there is less and less correlation between the crying of the baby and the absence of movement of the cradle you can infer that it has formed a memory of movement as pertaining to the blue and the white as a potential. (which for context is the kind of thing from where you yourself in adult age have abstracted the notion of potentiality, and for which reason you can even think of that concept). You call the cradle rock a distraction, perhaps implying that the movement and stimuli of the skin and internal balance itself introduces variables that takes the focus away from the chaos of the eye-stimuli, this should stand as a hypothesis on its own as is likely a far more normal interpretation of the baby-cradle situation as well as having more explanatory power. My idea is far more subtle but connects to far more examples when we abstract from it its essential elements, that one singular identity (which would be movement in my theory) reduces stress in our mind when it applies to many particular substances is so far as I am aware always the case, which is why our whole body-mind situation has an ego. The self is to the whole of reality what movement is to an array of colours, the self minimises the stress in our being by distributing itself over every element of reality. Edit: I am aware that the self produces new forms of stress, which we then try to minimise by removing ourself from reality itself, and when we alternatively try to change that self it too removes us from reality.

@PurpleTree That is exactly it, as has been observed by many who pays attention to impulses or intents they arise from nowhere with or without agitation from without, we do not intend them before they arise. Isn't it likely that it is because we identify so much with these intents thus existing continuously with them that we can live our whole life without seeing that they are not the medium which experiences them?

By dissecting each minute intent or impulse in an array of many in a row shouldn't it be possible to reveal the one who identifies with them from an angle foreign to it, if not also to see thereby the purpose that intent has in the whole mind-structure, objectively? What besides objectivity could possibly be revealed IF one succeeded with identifying the impulse of intent itself? And what would result from knowing ones every intent, how would the self-identity maintain itself if all the impulses that gives rise to it are known objectively, especially if we assume that all things that are known objectively are universally true as we may even confirm all our ongoing subtle intents to be?

@El Zapato Were you saying about these deeper thoughts that they lead to truths about perceptions or just truths that does not apply to any perception nor their relationship at all?

That sounds like a question for Leo, but the practice of 'mindfulness' probably would help focus that particular 'character of thought'. S1 I've long felt substantial and deeper thought occurs at the 'meta' level. It leads to the truth beneath the perception. And, in my mind, it is most important. S2 Perhaps the deconstruction of thought processes is the natural by-product of 'missing the connection'? We could view the non-separation as a feature rather than a bug. @El Zapato S1: You say that the deeper thoughts you have experienced that occur on a meta level have been more "substantial" than others, which I can understand as a metaphor as a replacement for what it actually is, but not in a way that relates to my usage of the word substantial in the above context. I mean that stimuli is substantial in that it is prior to everything else, or as the formal definition goes "not a predicate of anything else", and I consider it plausible that for our thoughts to arise to a level where it can exist alongside something substantial that it must compensate for the lack of its own substantiality/priorness, and this compensation may be explicable. S2: It could be, but would you elaborate on what you mean by "missing the connection", it were not entirely clear to me.

For context: my statement^ SOUL: There is at least one other alternative... observing. No ignorance, no pursuit, no stress, just simple awareness. @SOUL Interesting, let us say you engaged in mere observation or pure awareness of the present moment, for how long would you succeed at this before suddenly a certain perspective or connection were drawn, and once that is done what other options do you have than ignoring or pursuing the connection/perspective? And for how long would you sit purely aware like that before you experience stress from the chaos of pure being without knowing, connecting and pursuing? Surely we are interesting not only in fancy display of hypotheticals but to actually test whether all I say here unfolds. And if it does not unfold in your own practice the way I presented above here then I am all ears.

@Letho Though I'm not fond of the recursive use of objectivity here I think what you mean to ask is for me to provide examples of an objective property in a particular intent, as seen from a perspective outside of the self into which it normally integrates immediately. Let us say you go on a walk and you spot the clouds darkening above your head and decide therefore to walk back inside, on reflection of the intent to turn back from the walk you discover that it arises for the purpose of your comfort. The revelation I alluded to about how this relate to the whole mind-structure is minimised in this example because of how aware you would already be that you hate wet clothes. This alludes to the necessary subtlety of examples sufficient to produce those objective characters of intent that reveals the self from a new side, so let us say instead that somebody you love hurt you and you go on ignoring them for months without recognising it, the objective character of your own intent remained hidden throughout all that time because if it immediately revealed a new angle to you it may reveal a vulnerability that would cause a heightened disgust or distress towards the person who did it to you. The whole situation would not be very subtle, but the reason you ignored the other person would be.

What do all the things you know have in common? If we know something then isn't it about something else? "I know that my cat eats fish til there is only bones left!" But what does the above example have in common with every other kind of knowledge, what separates the knowledge from the thing that the knowledge is about?

@Someone here All you are doing is asserting again and again that your criterion for the concept of being is that it is sensory experience, that is a very personal business with no clear benefit other than to avoid the taxing efforts of distinctly identifying abstract concepts. But if we investigate what being is we find that only "nothing" could be opposed to it, which means that nothing is opposed to it thus everything is being, this of course is not profound but only an explication of what is obvious. We have good reason to state that sensory direct experience is primary and that everything besides it is a consequence of it, that would include all our memories, knowledge, relationships, self-impressions, desires and concepts. But that does not mean that these other things are "nothing", that would simply create ambiguities of language and likely cause you some ongoing stress thereby. The following two statements are borrowed from the quote above. (a). There is nothing but sensory direct experience. (b). Even thoughts and imagination is certainly felt or experienced. If you were consistent with your terms you would state not only that thoughts and imagination are felt and experienced but that they were direct sensory experience, which is absurd and the reason why (a) is false. The only intension that could produce (b) that relates to the assertion of (a) would be that somehow (b) substantiates (a).