Most things are imagined

[Reciprocality]

I must admit, I do not understand why you care about rules of language at all. Like everything you say point to perfect admissibility of gobbledygook.

Why not just speak babytongue?

[Reciprocality]

First everything is mystical and then we identify the mystical into groups of things to make sense of it, some such groups are that upon which all other groups depend.

Even though we can do this, do it automatically and can create a better life for ourself by means of it that does not make everything less mystical, that we can demystify the existence of the territory by a more and more complex system of comprehending and in some sense creating it, is the precise belief I do not hold.

But the comprehending itself, it self illuminated, and is necessarily so. All of this is incredibly obvious, and I have grown impatient with making that clear.

 

There is coherence, logic everywhere which makes life as you know, as I know it actual. I do not deny the possibility of something outside a mapping of coherence, but I have no idea what that would be like. Perhaps one would experience that on psychedelics, so far as non-duality is concerned, that may be an absolute coherence.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Fernanda]

@Reciprocality I appreciate this kind of high level topic being discussed here. Thank you. It brought me some basic questions. First, what is an object? Is it its function?

I was thinking about an a priori existence of paper currency. It can be considered an object, right?

According to what you are explaining it is a thing in itself. Now, consciousness imagines there is no need for this object "paper currency" to exist anymore. The function "exchanging of value" it provided goes to bitcoins, credit cards or just some numbers on a screen. If the object "paper currency" was not consciousness itself, where did it go? Isn't it a fact that it stopped being imagined by consciousness?

My point is....consciousness creates/ imagines representations to experiment itself. These "things" are consciousness experimenting itself and it can take any form imagined, it mutates, it gets destroyed on the way. 

Could you clarify that for me.

Thank you.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Fernanda

[A Fellow Lighter]

@Reciprocality what do you know?

[A Fellow Lighter]

20 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

I must admit, I do not understand why you care about rules of language at all. Like everything you say point to perfect admissibility of gobbledygook.

Why not just speak babytongue?

There is a difference between knowing something and knowing how to relate the knowing of that something. 

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

@Reciprocality what do you know?

How will you make relatable to me that which you know? Can you make it relatable? Because if not, then what is the point of speaking at all? So much for not caring about the rules of language, right?

There is actually one point in trying to communicate with another person, and that is to achieve unison: merging one's personal-experiential knowledge with another's personal-experiential knowledge is exactly what it means to commune - to become one. I cannot help but speak from a mystical pov; you cannot help but speak from a philosophical pov - though it is in English, these are already two different languages on their own. And yet, we try. Why is it so important that our experiences be relatable? What will this change? 

Man doesn't seek knowledge, for s/he already possesses it - is what I'm saying. Man seeks something more profound than that. S/he seeks meaning, what does it mean to be

So don't discourage yourself in caring for something as hallow as the rules of language. They are all effort to something deeper, whether you're aware of it or not.

[Reciprocality]

When you realize there is no way of making synthetic sense of existence because its negation is just invented, you discover also that there is no alternative to existence. (its "alternative" is invented in it)

And that right now, your consciousness, is the analytic a priori proof of that. 

It is not the proof of the claim, the claim is synthetic, as all sentences are. But the sentence points towards a realization, and are only cohesive with its predicate when the experience is had. In fact the predicate can only be invented in language after the experience. (claims should expose a possible experience, but never reduce the experience into its exposition)

On top of all this, somehow the realization were impossible without logic, as all things known are possible trough cohesion only and we are such things that makes cohesion everywhere.

Everything is ultimately an analytical logic of consciousness, even the idea of something in itself upon which consciousness is contingent is, which is precisely why it is such a weird idea, and why every Philosophy before Kant that I am aware of circumvented this problem in funny ways, and why Nihilism: Existentialism and then Absurdism were its end results.

Absurdism realizes that one can never make synthetic sense of existence, Nihilism desires to greatly to do so and Existentialism is in love with the mere idea of the thing in itself, and considers it himself.

[Reciprocality]

15 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Why is it so important that our experiences be relatable? What will this change? 

Man doesn't seek knowledge, for s/he already possesses it - is what I'm saying. Man seeks something more profound than that. S/he seeks meaning, what does it mean to be

So don't discourage yourself in caring for something as hallow as the rules of language. They are all effort to something deeper, whether you're aware of it or not.

Now this is a question, I believe it is our most essential life force, to commune in some way, for if not then we had no way of escaping ourself.

I find meaning in knowing, in fact in being what I know, in being how things are created. That is meaning for me.

Language and its rules are a necessity for communication, everything follows rules, even when we break them. But this type of discourse is best conducted breaking as few as possible.

[Reciprocality]

16 hours ago, Fernanda said:

@Reciprocality I appreciate this kind of high level topic being discussed here. Thank you. It brought me some basic questions. 1. First, what is an object? Is it its function?

2. I was thinking about an a priori existence of paper currency. It can be considered an object, right?

3. According to what you are explaining it is a thing in itself. Now, consciousness imagines there is no need for this object "paper currency" to exist anymore. The function "exchanging of value" it provided goes to bitcoins, credit cards or just some numbers on a screen. If the object "paper currency" was not consciousness itself, where did it go? Isn't it a fact that it stopped being imagined by consciousness?

My point is....consciousness creates/ imagines representations to experiment itself. These "things" are consciousness experimenting itself and it can take any form imagined, it mutates, it gets destroyed on the way. 

Could you clarify that for me.

Thank you.

@Fernanda 1. An object can be extremely many things, what is common between all its interpretations is that it is an identity which is imposed on a given subject, though it is here I argue that we by means of our internal syntax create the rules for possible identities, this internal syntax must be given a priori, that is before the object which were imposed on us in this a priori "language" were even experienced.

An object in space today, such as a chocolate bar may be half a chocolate bar tomorrow, yet some identity is shared between them such that one can infer that someone have eaten half of "it". This would not constitute a knowledge of both being the "same" chocolate bar, though it is the same identity.

If we did not have a mathematical syntax, such as edges or flatness we would have little to go on in creating the identity of the chocolate bar when we first saw it. 

An object can have a function, the object+its function can be considered a super-object, it can also be considered just an object, if that is just an object then what is then that minus its function? You would then need to invent a word for that, which is the reason why function would be best considered as different to its object while never canceled from each other completely.

 

2. Paper currency is an identity which extracts something from the sensation of paper money and give it to an a priori mathematical concept of scarcity. Now even the sensation of paper money is created from 1. a different though similar set of mathematical concepts to that of the chocolate bar and 2. sight. 1. is analytically a priori and 2. is a posteriori, they are combined in a way which forms an a priori synthetical judgement. Out of which I consider all identities of the "envirement" or "phsycial world" to be made. (though these are different from everyone, constituting the under determination problems)

You probably meant paper currency in particular and not that by means of which it is considered currency, which would then shorten my exposition of it to just concern how we create the bill's identity itself.

 

3. You say that consciousness imagines things to experience(?) itself, do I got that right? If you explain what you mean by this I will give the rest of your comment my best attempt at a good response.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

29 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I believe it is our most essential life force, to commune in some way, for if not then we had no way of escaping ourself

Not escaping, my friend - outgrowing. Growth, transcending, evolution, whichever term you prefer - is the point of communing. We wish to outgrow our current ‘self’ because our intuition, our light bringer, tells us that there is more to us than this.

Otherwise, why would you want to escape yourself if knew that being human is all you are? 

[Reciprocality]

3 hours ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

@Reciprocality what do you know?

I know that what sits in front of me now is something I call a screen.

I know the lamp behind me shares in some way the same identity with the other lamp behind me, though in another way it does not share the same identity.

If someone switched their location adequately when I were not looking then I had no way of knowing that they did so, which is a way of considering how they have the same identity, yet they also have different identities for the one relates to everything else in a way the other does not.

Lamp A is on the eastside of my bed, and Lamp B on the westside, this constitute an inessential identity concerning the lamp itself though essential concerning everything in relation to it. (and in some sense ultimately it in relation to everything)

I know many things, I also know how I came to know many things. Though most I thought I knew were dogmatic and pure belief.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Not escaping, my friend - outgrowing. Growth, transcending, evolution, whichever term you prefer - is the point of communing. We wish to outgrow our current ‘self’ because our intuition, our light bringer, tells us that there is more to us than this.

Otherwise, why would you want to escape yourself if knew that being human is all you are? 

We escape what we outgrow, I outgrew my ex and escaped her. It is ridiculous the kinds of things you language police about, though when it comes to philosophy everything must just float freely. : )

It is right at least, that we do wish to grow out of ourself for there is undeniably something which tells us there is more than this to us.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

For example, I know you, though at the same time I can hardly say I know you.

[A Fellow Lighter]

On 24/03/2022 at 0:19 AM, Reciprocality said:

First everything is mystical and then we identify the mystical into groups of things to make sense of it, some such groups are that upon which all other groups depend.

Even though we can do this, do it automatically and can create a better life for ourself by means of it that does not make everything less mystical, that we can demystify the existence of the territory by a more and more complex system of comprehending and in some sense creating it, is the precise belief I do not hold.

But the comprehending itself, it self illuminated, and is necessarily so. All of this is incredibly obvious, and I have grown impatient with making that clear.

 

There is coherence, logic everywhere which makes life as you know, as I know it actual. I do not deny the possibility of something outside a mapping of coherence, but I have no idea what that would be like. Perhaps one would experience that on psychedelics, so far as non-duality is concerned, that may be an absolute coherence.

Do you believe in chaos?

[A Fellow Lighter]

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

I know that what sits in front of me now is something I call a screen.

How do you know this?

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

know the lamp behind me shares in some way the same identity with the other lamp behind me, though in another way it does not share the same identity

How do you know this?

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

know many things, I also know how I came to know many things. Though most I thought I knew were dogmatic and pure belief.

Great, but how do you know?

[A Fellow Lighter]

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

We escape what we outgrow, I outgrew my ex and escaped her. It is ridiculous the kinds of things you language police about, though when it comes to philosophy everything must just float freely. : )

It is right at least, that we do wish to grow out of ourself for there is undeniably something which tells us there is more than this to us.

Yes, I will language police as much as I have to because I care of your impressions on my statements. 

When I say outgrow, and you say escape, this is not the same thing. So are you not distorting my words so that they become more acceptable in your accordance? If there is no coherence in what we say, we must acknowledge it, acknowledge the difference, because we are different, and learn what makes the other person different: what have you experienced that I haven't experienced, and how so? This is expanding awareness. Agreeing on statements that don't mean the same thing is a rather ignorant thing to do in the pursuit of awakening, because we are both aspects of reality: to ignore the other-self is to ignore an aspect of reality.

So, the fact that you have chosen to use the term escape in the place of outgrow hints at something about you and the world. That is what I wish to learn, nothing else.

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Do you believe in chaos?

@A Fellow Lighter Chaos is an a priori concept under which we primarily label such things in a physical or dynamical universe we do not understand how works, we also call such things "probabilistic".

The reason we call an effect A so or so probable is from what we call induction, we can only speculate regarding somethings probability from a given experience of a like thing in a given moment of time, from where we have written down certain data-points regarding it and are in a later moment in time considering under the same identity as we now experiment with something new. We can also do this mathematically, which becomes even more vague than experiments concerning probability and chaos.

Chaos and probability so far as they refer to some ontological predicate and not the status of a given knowledge or a lack thereof must for it's meaning or provability be conducted scientifically in two completely similar yet differently located universes. We know not how to do this.

Do I believe in physical probability, physical chance, chaos? I do not think we have any idea what we are talking about in even asking the question, regarding the physical in itself I only believe that it has differences within itself and that everything else concerning what we think is it concerns instead ourself. These differences and whatever they constitute as I have said repeatedly, I know nothing about, though natural science and therefore human cognition could concern the thing in itself. I simply do not know.

 

"I know that what sits in front of me now is something I call a screen."

How do you know this?

Well, I witnessed it being called a screen, I call that which witnessed it me. It is me that which witness the screen because "me" is that which this witness is called. This is circular language, language in itself is supposed to be circular under its own set of rules, if language were not circular then you were conducting an absurd experiment by means of it. Even our thoughts that language represent is meant to be circular in a similar way.

Though there are two types of circularity, the one in which the conclusion is the premise itself and the one in which both conclusion and premise  defines the other.

To have a non-circular language would be about equally absurd as having a a conclusion equal to a singular premise among several premises.

We know the rules of language because we decide them, as in constituting "by definition". We call the object a screen because "screen" is a class of things under which the object is automatically or manually recognized as, and we understand the class of things by means of the objects we decide to call a screen from the beginning. 

We do NOT need to remember the first time we learned what constitutes a screen in order for us to call it such.

We can also call it whatever we like, it is whatever we call it. Though it (object) is in some sense never equal to what it is called, yet equal in the sense that they share an Identity.

 

"know the lamp behind me shares in some way the same identity with the other lamp behind me, though in another way it does not share the same identity"

How do you know this? 

Good question, I first saw one lamp and made an identity out of it and then saw the other, for the identity of the other there were nothing required other than dividing the identity of the first in two, thereby adding by means of this division a second object, this occurs automatically because of the sensation that are imposed upon me. This is how quantity works concerning the world and how we came to discover number theory.

Number theory is then again defined quadratically and qubically, as without our a priori concepts of spatial dimensions we would not make numbers possible, everything is indeed connected in beautiful ways. If however it is possible to create a number theory without these particular a priori concepts then that would mean they converge synthetically and not analytically. Though at this point I must actually differentiate between types of synthesis and analysis, I do not have vocabulary for that and would maybe get banned if I begun with variables again.

The reason it is hard to know in which way they are connected goes back to the question concerning how identities masquerades as pure a priori concepts or sensibilities.

"know many things, I also know how I came to know many things. Though most I thought I knew were dogmatic and pure belief."

Great, but how do you know?

I have written about 20 comments on this, you want me to refer to the comments I already wrote to you because you did not get them? Well I won't unless you articulate something in particular about them that you do not understand.

From this point onward the questions must be particular and intelligent, thus showing a common understanding, if they are not written discursively or problematically there is little for you to learn from the answers.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Yes, I will language police as much as I have to because I care of your impressions on my statements. 

When I say outgrow, and you say escape, this is not the same thing. So are you not distorting my words so that they become more acceptable in your accordance? If there is no coherence in what we say, we must acknowledge it, acknowledge the difference, because we are different, and learn what makes the other person different: what have you experienced that I haven't experienced, and how so? This is expanding awareness. Agreeing on statements that don't mean the same thing is a rather ignorant thing to do in the pursuit of awakening, because we are both aspects of reality: to ignore the other-self is to ignore an aspect of reality.

So, the fact that you have chosen to use the term escape in the place of outgrow hints at something about you and the world. That is what I wish to learn, nothing else.

While all this is fine and indeed a good method, it does not make it less ridiculous that instead of focusing on integrating differences concerning the matter we discuss you instead try to correct my own reflection on my own life.

Of which there is also ridiculously little in common with this response above which you must have thought there being in writing it in relation to it.

Edit: So far as you did not mean to correct this reflection, you would be entirely in your right making cohesion of or ideas. Though I must be forgiven for finding it hard to believe that you care for cohesion when you are oblivious how cohesion is truth.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

While all this is fine and indeed a good method, it does not make it less ridiculous that instead of focusing on integrating differences concerning the matter we discuss you instead try to correct my own reflection on my own life.

There is nothing I wish to correct about, I am not looking for a clone who will eco my voice. I am looking for your world, and my only chance in finding it is through a rigorous series of Q and A. So, I am sorry if I come across dismissive. If you could show me where I try to correct you then I'll change my manner of trying to understand. 

So far, my impression of your world seems all to be philosophical. I am only wondering what you make of my world?

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Edit: So far as you did not mean to correct this reflection, you would be entirely in your right making cohesion of or ideas. Though I must be forgiven for finding it hard to believe that you care for cohesion when you are oblivious how cohesion is truth.

Then explain your ideas to me as though you were explaining them to a child. I am not a philosopher, I did not learn the world through contemplation. I learned it by observing it's patterns, and in relating these patterns to my fellow Lighters, I associate the pattern with a word I see fit in representing the nature of pattern. I have no ideas to share with you, in terms of philosophy, I have nothing to offer. Only my experience of the world is what I can offer. 

So as far as the integration of differences goes, I am literally at the mercy of the language you use to communicate with me. There more simple it is, the more smooth this interaction will be. The more complex, the more bumpy, to the point where one feels negated by the other. I do not wish to negate you, Lighter; I wish to be enlightened.

[A Fellow Lighter]

On 23/03/2022 at 11:34 PM, Reciprocality said:

You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X)" Nope.

What am I missing?

On 23/03/2022 at 11:34 PM, Reciprocality said:

Everything is the reason you know you exist, which is why the question is meaningless. Your consciousness is a predicate, not a conclusion. There is no synthetic reason you know you exist, to attempt a philosophy which does that would be silly, though to attempt a science of doing that could give many, many answers, how you come to determine what those answers mean is the pinnacle of the hard problem, concerning which I have beliefs and not knowledge.

See, one may argue there is no reason at all you know you exist, perhaps it's simply intuitive. But go on, what would be the science? And how would it manage to not be as silly as attempting this with philosophy?

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter My thinking gets too dry and repetitive when instead of being proactive in its own questions and solution it is reactive towards already chewed questions.

You are certainly a skeptic towards something, though it is not even clear that it is to the possibility of truth, only truthful judgements.

"most screens are 9 by 16 inches" is a synthetic judgement/proposition, I would agree with it though hardly know it, it would even be unclear if I knew it if someone else measured all the screens on the planet, nay if I measured them all myself I would not even know, for I could hardly measure them all at once. And even if I did I could not know that screens were a Human invention only, no not even know that it were a human invention at ALL.

Though I know what the proposition means, on this there is no real dispute.

It seems you have confounded synthetic judgements such as above with a priori knowability. I know of nothing besides sensations and feelings of and in my body, concepts of intellect and sensibility in terms of which both are connected. 

I know they are connected because without the sensibility of causation there were nothing upon which for anticipations of experience to form, these anticipations occurs mathematically or conceptually in a language of simple and complex logic every minute of the day, yet they do so by means also of feelings and sensations of the body.

If I were not sensible to time or space I had no direction in which to think or move, the sensibility of causation is that which unifies both, this unification occurs automatically or analytically and requires no formed judgement, thus are a priori truth. (as nothing is required to do for one to know it, it is true "before" judgement.)