Most things are imagined

[Reciprocality]

Every particular thing is imagined. (NB: this is not meant as a complex thought experiment, it truly is meant to be first and foremost experiential)

The reason it does not matter whether we experienced it trough the senses first or whether we made it applicable to the senses after having created it is because either duration is made possible trough a unified limit.

If we first think of our particular dragon and then paint it on a canvas there is nothing more here imagined than there would be if we just witnessed another persons painting of their dragon while surely here would constitute two different expressions of creativity.

But there are more than particular things to our existence, if there weren't then cohesion were impossible. Consciousness is not imagined, it is actual, though it is imagined as a particular thing among the context we call our life, which again is an imagination.

 

But there are a structure to reality which necessarily makes things (x) in consciousness of a similar "power" to it which non the less is predicated on it, without these; consciousness would be always non-dual and everything impossible. My claim is that you can experience all particular things as predicated on these a priori intuitions (x) such primarily as space.

To consider the intuition of time, space and causality as equally imagined as the particular objects pertaining to it would be to chop of your own wits, except in those cases only when all distinctions disappear, so far as you desire to make sense and use language know that you can only do that because of the intuitions (x) you do not imagine right now which instead imagines you.

You are imposed by these intuitions and everything you care about are rendered under them, so what are they? How many of them are there? 

And what seems like such an intuition but is instead dogma masquerading as it? Consider for instance red, the color you can experience in a flower and the words you use to refer to it. Does the way they relate to each other in your mind without the immediate experience of either color or word itself constitute a sensible intuition such as space, time or causality (x), and if they do then what stops us from claiming that we for instance know that our bathroom has a window or going back to the example: claiming for instance that we know our tongue is red?

The answer is the most magnificent discovery of the western philosophical canon, but I am curious if anyone has a guess of their own? Or a way to make sense of it themselves?

Edited March 20, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

If there is anything here of interest, then feel free to PM me about it. I am happy to hear from anyone.

[A Fellow Lighter]

This is perceptive.

If you regard intuition as something like a sixth sense then we can have a meaningful conversation here. Otherwise I am not quite sure what it is you're asking.

Here's my take on this: The world of senses (percepts) is the world of ideas (concepts), and vice versa. Consciousness is fundamentally dualistic - it is a duality at its most fundamental level. Just try to perceive an object without having an idea as to what you're perceiving, you'll find this task immediately mind-bending. Why?

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

But there are a structure to reality which necessarily makes things (x) in consciousness of a similar "power" to it which non the less is predicated on it

No, the things are imagined, remember. So it's not that there are objects being powered by consciousness, it's only that the objects are what reflect the presence of a consciousness in the first place. Because there is imagination, we know there is consciousness. The apple you take a bite at, that is consciousness you're biting. The car that you drive to work, that is consciousness you're driving. The wo/man that you sleep with, that is consciousness you're f#ing. Metaphysically speaking, there is no difference between the apple, the car and your partner, because these are all ideas. I'm lying...

The difference is vibration, but I'll only get to that if you insist I do. But with regards to the “things of consciousness”, there are no things, bro - there is only a duration of images, all popping up at their own frequency, which is why some appear more true or real than others, because the painted dragon bears more frequency than the thought-dragon. This is why dreams feel less real and lack continuity in comparison to the waking dream, aka real life, because the waking dream has a higher/stronger frequency.

So yeah, everything is but a duration of successive images. That is what imagination is. An image is simply an idea embodied with consciousness. Some of these images we create personally, like the dragon. Most of our reality is imagination via collective consciousness/human consciousness.

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

everything you care about are rendered under them, so what are they? How many of them are there? 

Okay so here you're trying to assume a reality out of consciousness, if I'm interpreting what you've stated correctly. And that's the reality of space, time and causality. But again, things things come secondary to consciousness. 

Okay, so I can't seem to stay clear from the topic of vibration, I'll have to explain with regards to this context. Okay, before perception, before any sight, scent, sound and etc, there is vibration or intelligent infinity or unison - all are equal concepts. The vibration is the substance of all matter. We cannot know this vibration with sensory perception, we can only sense it intuitively. Intuition literally means not taught (no tuition), it means a sense of impression not information. Anyway, we pick up the vibe and we work out an idea in our head as to what it is, then we manifest it via consciousness. 

If I may define consciousness for context: it is a stream of intelligent energy - the energy that enables interaction/manipulation with/of the vibration I mentioned above. Without consciousness, we would only be spiritually aware of the power of vibration/intelligent infinity, but we would not be able to access it and manifest anything - creation would only mean possibility and never availablity as we would lack the intelligence to channel it. 

So in answering this question ?

3 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

so what are they? How many of them are there?

It's not “they”, and it is only one - and that is vibration or Intelligent Infinity. The causality of creation is ideation. 

Sorry the response had to be this long, I saw no way around it.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter It is rather scary to see so many well capable people being fooled out of the bare minimum which makes communication and all kinds of thoughts possible. Luckily it is primarily language itself that fools us.

That I can refer to space at all, that such a thing as me intuiting it is possible is more than concept, yet at the same time me referring to it is conceptual.

Yet for me to refer to it such that you make sense of it and can therefore apply its meaning to a space in which objects may be placed requires you to innately know of space.

If this were not innate then the only alternative argument were to say that the intuition of space (I care not what you call it) came from induction by experience of the objects you could place in it, but this would be impossible because then they would float freely having no cohesion, every second in which you do not experience non-duality is therefore a proof of space not being induced.

I can come back to the rest of your contentions if we at the very least can establish agreement here.

Edit: I should add that I do not speak about a physical space as something independent of me.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

32 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter It is rather scary to see so many well capable people being fooled out of the bare minimum which makes communication and all kinds of thoughts possible. Luckily it is primarily language itself that fools us.

That I can refer to space at all, that such a thing as me intuiting it is possible is more than concept, yet at the same time me referring to it is conceptual.

Yet for me to refer to it such that you make sense of it and can therefore apply its meaning to a space in which objects may be placed requires you to innately know of space.

If this were not innate then the only alternative argument were to say that the intuition of space (I care not what you call it) came from induction by experience of the objects you could place in it, but this would be impossible because then they would float freely having no cohesion, every second in which you do not experience non-duality is therefore a proof of space not being induced.

I can come back to the rest of your contentions if we at the very least can establish agreement here.

Edit: I should add that I do not speak about a physical space as something independent of me.

This agreement would prove difficult to reach if we do not equate our personal-conceptional-lingual background. Personally, I do not perceive space in my direct awareness, I simply perceive the distance in time rather than space. 

37 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

(I care not what you call it)

You should care, my friend. How else will we establish a common ground of discussion? 

41 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

: I should add that I do not speak about a physical space as something independent of me

Then could you clarify? What do you mean by “things (x) in consciousness”? Physics teaches the basic principle of what constitutes an object, saying it is that which occupies space. So for the sake of understanding, could you maybe define your concept of space and objects rather rigourously.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter I only meant that I have no problem with what you call it, even though I have my ideas of what it would better be called.

In this sense you are free not to call space an intuition, we can regard it as sensibility, we can also regard it as something a priori. 

If we did not have this a priori sensible intuition of space then we could not operate in what we call "physical" space, neither could we think of any object in space, neither could objects be possible in our consciousness.

The very nature of what we speak is of such a kind that it actually is not important for us to "equate" lingual background, for as far as you have any idea of space, and indeed can write back on a keyboard or even think of a keyboard we speak of the same thing, the problem is that you will not admit to it being more than imagined. Even though your writing proves the opposite, this is all fine for this mistake is the primary problem of the metaphysics of actualized forum in general. 

Pretty much nothing would be possible in consciousness except perhaps for consciousness itself without this intuition of space. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

@Reciprocality seems to me that what you refer to space has the equivalent of the fabric of Knowledge. Maybe not...

28 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

intuition, we can regard it as sensibility, we can also regard it as something a priori. 

Sure we could use “sensibility”.

30 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

If we did not have this a priori sensible intuition of space then we could not operate in what we call "physical" space, neither could we think of any object in space, neither could objects be possible in our consciousness.

Yes, the fabric of knowledge precedes all knowables.

31 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The very nature of what we speak is of such a kind that it actually is not important for us to "equate" lingual background, for as far as you have any idea of space, and indeed can write back on a keyboard or even think of a keyboard we speak of the same thing, the problem is that you will not admit to it being more than imagined. Even though your writing proves the opposite, this is all fine for this mistake is the primary problem of the metaphysics of actualized forum in general. 

No, I'll admit it. This is not a problem, I think I understand what you're talking about now. And yes, I agree, the field of awareness underlies all. I can't speak for the whole forum, though. But I definitely get it.

 

35 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Pretty much nothing would be possible in consciousness except perhaps for consciousness itself without this intuition of space

Okay so I'm tempted to disagree here, saying that even consciousness would be impossible. But maybe define consciousness as you've come to learn it then we'll proceed.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter Well great! I appreciate you bearing with me thus far! Yes I would agree that consciousness had hardly any meaning if sensibility weren't 'in it'. I would only speak of my impressions of the forum in general, not the whole thing.

So now, consider an object that you could not consider had you not had this sensibility of space. Any object, this object has a certain identity which makes it both possible to be experienced in space with your eyes open and which makes you capable of thinking about it without actually seeing it in space.

Is this identity a priori the same way space is? OR in another way: is this identity created from the experience you first had of it, or is this identity also there before you experienced it the first time? I would of course say the former, but is it then a priori? 

And is it not amazingly mind boggling that such an a priori undertaking is at all possible then? 

If it is a priori just like space, then the experience of chair after first having seen it would depend on its identity even though the identity were made by the experience the first time. I call it imagination when something is dependent on where we go, but not that which is necessarily the same wherever we go. (this will perhaps get clearer down below)

The thing is that every component of the identity of the chair is also something sensible a priori, in this way even though the chair is a peculiar and very distinct object it is made entirely our of our inherent (chirs langan would call it "syntax") that we distribute over it. At the same time we have an idea of the chair in itself and independent of us, but what we must consider now is that this idea even though it is loud and clear must remain empty. Kant called it "the thing in itself".

We are able to imagine experiences by the way our mind effortlessly combines a priori sensibilities (most of which are mathematical) such to make distinct objects, we are not such things which must necessarily be subject to these objects but we are necessarily such things that are subject to these sensibilities that comprise these possible objects.

Does these object exists in themselves? I would actually say yes, just like Kant I would say that there is nothing we can say about them. (expect perhaps that they are different to each other)

 

I expect you to be skeptical, and I will do my best at defending it all, that you understood what I meant with sensibility is that upon which the rest depend, which is a great start.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

3 hours ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Okay so I'm tempted to disagree here, saying that even consciousness would be impossible. But maybe define consciousness as you've come to learn it then we'll proceed.

Consciousness would be absolutely everything that happens except for the thing (object, universe) in itself, yet also this is in consciousness so far as we think of it or refer to it. (though we really cant think of it or refer to it at all, just like you can not really believe in god only a certain idea you have of a certain thing) So it is not a thought like other thoughts, if anything is mystical it would be this "thought", or the experience of even considering such a thing that could be independent of us. 

Our rationalism understands how we are contingent on the thing in itself by means of the a priori causation we attribute the a posteriori spatial part of us which is intuited as the conscious "result" of this independent thing in itself. Which is also why some of us think we are matter itself.

Most rationalists are dogmatists, those of us who leave the thing in itself alone, and do not claim knowledge over it but accept that regarding 'it' we can only speculate however, we are in this regard not dogmatic at all.

It should make anyone mind-blown to even consider if this thing in itself can be something different than conscious, I know not whether it is or not. Panpsychists would say that it is, they are simply unfamiliar with their own limitations.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

On 20/03/2022 at 7:48 PM, Reciprocality said:

The reason it does not matter whether we experienced it trough the senses first or whether we made it applicable to the senses after having created it is because either duration is made possible trough a unified limit.

What do you mean by “unified limit”?

Sorry for taking this long to respond, I was just moving back to the city from my hometown.

On 20/03/2022 at 7:48 PM, Reciprocality said:

Consciousness is not imagined, it is actual, though it is imagined as a particular thing among the context we call our life, which again is an imagination.

The context of our life is imagined, however much more than that is imagined: The picture of the thing (X) is imagined, as well as the structure, the nature, the colour and etc, just as the context is imagined. Consciousness is that which we imagine with. Even if one may speak of consciousness as a particular thing, this does nothing to the true work of consciousness, that is - it enables everything (not just sensibility; it enables every ability). Can we agree on this?

[A Fellow Lighter]

On 20/03/2022 at 7:48 PM, Reciprocality said:

But there are a structure to reality which necessarily makes things (x) in consciousness of a similar "power" to it which non the less is predicated on it, without these; consciousness would be always non-dual and everything impossible.

Okay see.. this is why I needed to know what you meant by consciousness. See, for me, there is a difference between awareness and consciousness. I'm saying that there is no anything without consciousness, including “structure to reality”, for consciousness, if I may describe poetically, is that great magician that makes the impossible quite possible. And what is the impossible? The impossible is there - here - being a you and a me, the impossible is there being the existence of worlds and world makers, and innumerable finite objects in these world's, the impossible is the opposite of nonduality, it is the Maya - or what people have chosen to call “the dream”.

Awareness is a relative term, because according to me, everyone is in the know. So awareness has to do with spiritual growth, one becoming aware or awakening to an aspect of Maya, then another aspect, and another and another. Generally, what people refer to awareness, in their own terms, is actually relatability. Simply because one cannot relate, the other-self will say s/he is unaware. Simply because the other-self can relate and possesses sufficient intellect to demonstrate this relatability via language - one will say,“S/he is awakened” or “enlightened” Otherwise, whatever the other-self says to one's self it will sound like nothing but mumbojumbo nonsense. This is what day-to-day communication is like, isn't? So awakening or awareness is quite relative in my sentience, it all depends on spiritual growth. 

The true priori that you regard to, I will say is Knowledge itself - simply knowing that there/here is knowing, this is complete, this is whole, this is nonduality. There is no other.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter There is a very precise structure in which things occur in consciousness (i have spoken extensively about it already), the metacognition of which is not necessary for things to occur in consciousness. On top of this structure there are theories to be had and contingencies on our particular personality. (schema)

While it is true that everything of us is consciousness and that concerning the substance of anything outside consciousness we are just speculating, it is necessary for our sanity and all possible science to have a speculative relation to this empty intuition of the thing in itself which on the surface looks like the objects we refer to in the sensibility of time, space and causality.

If one were to take on the academic culture we are in reaction towards, primarily naive and dogmatic rationalism and skepticism we would be entirely out of our element if "non-duality", "everything is imagination" and "your are god" were our weapon, but rather how we each and any of us both create reality in terms of our limitations (a priori sensibility) and what due to it can be regarded as knowledge or just beliefs.

And of course how even our beliefs are knowledge of some kind, as the predicate for the sharpest critique of why they have a hard time distinguishing between them in the first place.

I understand you have your own way of seeing things, of expressing things, we all do. It is unclear how it relates to my aim and my questions. If you desired to answer them and not your first interpretation or second interpretation of them there would be no other way than to continue asking questions concerning them.

Consciousness requires no definition, there is no hocus pocus to it, to even consider that it requires so is already an inherent problem. Though its reference can be exposed and placed in a given context of thinking, consciousness in this regard would be everything except the things we can only speculate about, the speculation of which would be its negation. It is not consciousness that is mystical but the eternal and absurd idea that some"thing" can be independent of it.

For those that naively believe they can think about an independent existence outside their consciousness and know about how it operates it is consciousness that becomes mystical in relation to it (the hard problem etc)

Edited March 22, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

"The picture of the thing (X) is imagined"

No, imagination is made possible due to it. Sensible space, without it imagination had no power.

 

Though if you mean by the picture as in my reference to this sensibility then yes.

Consciousness is not just what we imagine with but also the imagined. Consciousness is thereby both our experience of objects that we imagine and their predicate as sensible space. Sensible space is not imagined, if it were then you would again argue for induction all the way down.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

"The reason it does not matter whether we experienced it trough the senses first or whether we made it applicable to the senses after having created it is because either duration is made possible trough a unified limit.

If we first think of our particular dragon and then paint it on a canvas there is nothing more here imagined than there would be if we just witnessed another persons painting of their dragon while surely here would constitute two different expressions of creativity."

There is no word for it that I know of, but this unified limit is imagination as it pertains to a possible experience, either duration is analogous to the other not in the way we went about creating them, but in that as a possible or actual experience they are both made by a faculty for imagination, or simply imagined. Consciousness is imposed or limited by the things that are imagined in it. Yet in itself it is unlimited.

Every possible limit is also a potential towards the future.

The future is never that which were anticipated before it became, because all identities by which we anticipate experience relates synthetically and not analytically with progression of time. 

This again can be explained by how no two things are either completely the same or completely different. Which again is the purest way of considering holism.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Consciousness is not just what we imagine with but also the imagined

I thought we were in agreement that consciousness is not imagined ?

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Consciousness is imposed or limited by the things that are imagined in it. Yet in itself it is unlimited.

My friend, a thing is only limited by the energy it has. If a thing has limited energy, then it is limited, what is energy but that which enables you? 

 

 

[A Fellow Lighter]

@Reciprocality look around, look about, you. What is there? An environment, yes? Internal and external? Now, how do you know this environment? The conventional scientist will tell of electromagnetic energy. Now, before this energy, what is there? Can you know of anything, any environment (internal and external)? 

Let's start here. Just answer these questions. Then we will have ground.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter "My friend", energy is also a term that speaks from an intuition that applies to everything. As such nothing is outside energy, though what distinguishes the sensibility of space with energy is how we synthetically determine that everything is energy while we determines it analytically that all objects appears in space.

Everything that we imagine is also our consciousness, I made this strikingly clear for you. Everything is not therefore imagined, consciousness so far as it is also for example the sensibility of space is not. That is self evident, for otherwise you did not even have the luxury of thinking that it were imagined.

 

We have in general a pretty accurate idea of external and internal, though this boundary is more of a map for the benefit of survival than philosophically sophisticated, to see where these boundaries collapses would be beneficial for comprehending what I say and also the questions that are my actual interest here.

44 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

@Reciprocality look around, look about, you. What is there? An environment, yes? Internal and external? Now, how do you know this environment? The conventional scientist will tell of electromagnetic energy. Now, before this energy, what is there? Can you know of anything, any environment (internal and external)? 

Let's start here. Just answer these questions. Then we will have ground.

Lets consider the bed behind me, this constitute a part of my environment, had I not been sensible to space then I would neither have a means to create an identity of it nor experience the sensation of seeing it in the first place. I call it an environment that which constitutes identities that are either experienced in appearance or without an appearance.

I only know about this environment right now those two general things (if I understand what you ask), though I do not know that the identity of my bed has an "equal" bed in the phenomenal environment itself if I turn my head, but have from induction a good reason to believe it will be there when I turn around.

I can necessarily know about "anything" the way you phrase it. The ground were established when we agreed on the sensibility all environments must be made of.

If there is any question regarding the possibility of knowledge, than that is already a good reason to be confused.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

10 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The conventional scientist will tell of electromagnetic energy.

Yes this is a good science, a strong belief concerning our environment, though it is not knowledge that space consists of electromagnetic energy.

That is as stated, a belief. The more familiar you are with its content, and the better scientist you are the more justified you are in believing in it. It is primarily an inductive method by which the scientists conclude with space being of this particular quality.

My discourse here stands on its own feets independent of any science I have ever heard of.

 

Edit: To claim knowledge of space as consisting of a particular energy is a dogmatic rationalism, though I would be more inclined to accept a claim regarding a knowledge of space as energetic. For the sensibility of space were hardly possible if energy were not happening everywhere in some sense.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

A priori, synthesis, analysis, phenomena, cohesion, a posteriori, induction, necessity, knowledge, sensibility.

It would help much if you also understood the mere foundations of Skepticism, Dualism, Idealism, Rationalism and Physicalism. (But I conduct the experiment in such a way as to hopefully not make that a necessity)

If the ideas could be conveyed without the usage of these terms then I would be happy to do so, though my sentences would surely then include a definition of the terms instead, which I from a lot of experience determine as hurtful and not helpful to possible agreement.

That becomes incredible long-winded, and given that I am dyslexic it really drains my energy to explicate everything to its most acute detail. 

I am despite all this a big picture kind of guy, but many guilty of that proclivity loses naturally along side it the ability to do more than merely associate terms with each other in relation to this 'picture'. At least I were, and now I see pure association pretty much in anyone to various degrees. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

7 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

"My friend", energy is also a term that speaks from an intuition that applies to everything. As such nothing is outside energy, though what distinguishes the sensibility of space with energy is how we synthetically determine that everything is energy while we determines it analytically that all objects appears in space.

I'm not sure of the first statement here regarding an intuition that applies to everything. If you feel like you can state this in another way then please do.

Here's what I am certain of though, which is no induction: Yes, there is nothing outside of energy, for in order for a thing to be a thing, this requires an enablement of some sort simply because no thing can arise from nothing. Everything requires energy, yes?

This is quite simple what I'm saying here, no science other than the original science (observance) is involved. Let us just say yes, there is nothing outside of energy. What I'm saying is this.. For there to be perception, there must first be the perceptible. For there to be action, there must first be the the doable. For there to be love, there must be the lovable. For there to be thought, there must be the thinkable. And etc. So you see, the things of reality must be enabled, otherwise nothing is happening. 

Now, why am I saying that there is nothing outside of consciousness, not even the structure of reality? It is because consciousness is what enables the illusion that is finitude, consciousness is that great magician that works with pulling something out of nothing. Structure comes from instruction, picture comes from imagination, texture comes from context, and so forth. Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself.