Reciprocality

Most discourse is an exchange of knowledge, during which we often fixate on what we know, but how often do we distinguish between what we know and the tendency of knowing it? If you are anything like me then you often treat knowledge as rungs on the ladder, when it is acquired it is left behind, I consider this one kind of tendency of knowledge. Is it possible to stop the compulsion of "leaving the known behind"? If so, how do you do this?

You'll become serious, uncharmingly serious, because the condition for the lighthearted and humorous is the inverse of all you take reality to be, but you already considered all those inverses a hundred times over and would laugh as much when they were summoned as when they weren't. Everything becomes principles that carry the weight of predictions, and every fallacious prediction is a review as to the validity of the universality in that principle and thus a review of their origins in vanishing memories that you initially formed because they mattered to someone you no longer are.

@jacknine119 Are you prepared to stop investigating reality and instead dedicate your life to logical inconsistencies five our ten steps away from the apparent meaning you associate with your hard fought concepts and perspectives? Make no mistake about it, philosophy proper (philosophy as a discipline) is a pursuit into that which is not, in other terms: into that which we once craved. It begins no differently to how it ends, a rejection of coherence through narrative and appearance, it is a compulsion against telos and thus a nihilism. It is systematised maturity, and you will have no ability to predict whether this were the better approach, it will be delusional bravery. If you do it correctly some of the faces of the people you meet will bear marks of the contemplation of your homicide, since they will identify in you the inverse of faults they know they have to carry forever, if you do it correctly a fly may become more interesting than yourself.

@Carl-Richard Hah, humour! Is it reasonable to expect others to write how they speak in forums where the availability of long format communication and higher precision of abstraction is the reason forums get chosen in the first place?

Luckily we wont rely on their resistance to win against the white man, he fights himself and loses.

@Ulax You may notice that to describe any of these things you will naturally imagine what the recipient already know about the topic, unless of course you don't actually listen to when other people are talking and cant infer what they may or may not know, people who are deficient in this cognitive empathy aspect of life are rhetoricians even in dialogue, they will assume that you don't know what they know, and to feed such an assumption they must rely on grand societal narratives. There is interestingly only relative difference between physical laws and the perception of tennis in so far as either becomes a topic for conversation and thus represented in terms of universal concepts, dualities and logical complementarity, though the more assumed those physical laws must be in your head the less valid those concepts you refer to them are in the context of that conversation. The tennis ball is elastic, you can be pretty sure that the recipient can predict that when this ball is fired off on the court the player who receives it is thereby in less danger than if the ball were not elastic, if on the other hand you have observed something about the tennis match which is different from all the things you find it plausible that the interlocutor is aware of then you have engaged in proper thinking, that kind of thinking every single non-sleeping adult human being engages in as we speak. Your first mission is gauging what someone is aware of and not, while on the other hand this will never be possible if you did not already perceive something yourself. There is not much to think about except what can be seen, as it contains always the substance that all thoughts analogise between, when you describe something abstract you should think away from a perception all that is irrelevant to that about that perception which is the same in another perception, and refuse to engage with the continuous income of associations and perspectives that often follows.

Yet they must learn to use these AI systems, some of the findings in this study will be be a necessary sacrifice, certainly on average. We may also generalise any set of passively consumed information and mastery of that information as yielding similar result, less brain usage during relative passivity and much more brain usage during mastery. This study is like comparing the brain usage of a 13 year old on vacation to Bahamas with a 13 year old asked to recall and interpret what really happened on Bahamas and engaging in conversation about it, it is moreover completely predictable that those who have spent 100/300 hours engaged with AI will spend much less productive energy writing an essay by means of that AI than someone who has spent 1000/2000 hours writing without AI will when asked to write an essay without it. What is the result of someone who has spent 1000 hours actively with AI? Will be no mystery when it turns out that their brain is properly used in that context.

The most obvious answer would be that though we can and will logically separate the meaning of a) stroking a cat and b) the characteristics of the cat these two things will not actually be separated merely for that reason, and their non-separation is tied to a subtler and deeper set of logic that pertains to the reality and not merely potentiality of the situation. We may use James Gibsons theory of affordances to illustrate it better, you don't premeditate the time when you will pet the cat, instead the behaviour and characteristics of the cat spontaneously makes you think of petting (affords you the idea of petting), plenty of these characteristics are for instance present in young children but disappears more the older the child becomes. Some of these characteristics are: cuteness, non-agency and innocence. That pets and small children react positively to petting is a given, the bodily pleasure is a given, they do not yet separate themselves from the one who is petting them via a rigid representation of a self, and thus do not need to calculate the emotional entailments of the situation that would dissimulate it.

@BlessedLion You are incentivised to believe that anything you said were not common knowledge, to imagine a recipient who do not already know, you are inventing the method of projecting a non-agent on others with every phrase you lean so heavily into. The real imagination here is the ego who has something to gain from these rhetorical constructs and methods, not the contexts and judgements that are connected to our environment via past perceptions and reflections.

They have infinites of energies because when they communicate with other humans their batteries gets reset from the shared understanding they feel in presence of each other and can do this uninterrupted by the toxicity of grand narratives and such coping mechanisms that certain others have to deal with when they try to interpret the signs that got lost on them decades ago.

@QandC For transcendental entities or principles to be meaningful things or existence must first be considered as contingent or "could have not been", such principles were traditionally the laws of logic, sufficient reason and parsimony but with Kant it became the most primitive accidents that are necessary for every thing to appear and therewith entirely inessential for the identity of each one thing, and so it was that space and time became the conditions for the possibility of experience in Kants view. Unfortunately he never demonstrated that the directly present experience in existence is contingent, it could very well be that the necessary accidents such as the concepts of time and space are the contingent variable which humans naturally abstract or identify from the relation between things in motion, just as humans construe the "possible" from decoupling representation from the presented.

Something else should also be clear: the world does not work in such a simplistic way that you can infer from someone not meditating that they have not integrated the benefits you associate with meditating from your own practice. The most general comprehension of the principle your assumption about meditation or self-help in general apparently violates is "modus tollens" which then yield the fallacy of "denying the antecedent".

@Rishabh R Because their development and maturity does not hinge on deliberate constructions of the gimmicks and platitudes they justifiably associate with self-help. It is on you to determine whether they are doing personal development via analysis of their practice, and this happens independently of peacocking on forums. Edit: chances are high that their development can occur without needing any of the words, abstractions, phrases, sub-cultures and beliefs associated with "self-help" or "spirituality" or whatever have you.

It appears that to say anything at all to anyone without triviality we must in our own head construe their absence of that knowledge, what is different between this tendency of construal and ego separation if there really is only one experience, thus one knowledge, and we all tap into it?

Hello people Inferring what must be true about something from the absence of another thing about it, why can this succeed? To say or write is to appear with an intent, this intent is ineffective without a prediction of the recipient for whom we are appearing, these predictions require some coherence among one another to not themselves becoming the problem, that coherence is a model of reality, is it always this model we tap into when we infer positives from negatives, when we infer that something particular causes something to lack a given expected property? What is going on with the narrative in our rhetorical intents, is there some universal law to these that can be identified, how invariant are the fibres or quality in these intents among us? At which level of analysis are they identical and could we say that most below that level are inessential to the real meaning of the intent that allows us to converse with anyone?