Most things are imagined

[A Fellow Lighter]

25 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

is only truth if reason has any validity, and to me it does. But you do not have to agree. But if you do not agree then stop arguing, there is nothing to argue about thereby.

If you yourself do not believe in the ideas you're presenting on this thread, and are only posing questions for the mere sake of arguing, then yes I'll amply stop discussing this topic with you. But if you're most sincere in your quest of learning of the workings of consciousness then let's discuss away, there's nothing to lose and much to gain from each other.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter 

23 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

How are we completely different?

Well you go by a different username than me, if there were no opposite of us both then there were also no reason for us to be at all different. It is imprecise to call it completely different, at least for now. And it does not matter to my point.

[Reciprocality]

20 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

If you yourself do not believe in the ideas you're presenting on this thread, and are only posing questions for the mere sake of arguing, then yes I'll amply stop discussing this topic with you. But if you're most sincere in your quest of learning of the workings of consciousness then let's discuss away, there's nothing to lose and much to gain from each other.

I have no idea what this comes from, or how it connects to that in quotation which you responded to. There is not much to learn about consciousness itself, but there are many ways to think of it. There are many modalities to it, if you will. But nothing to learn.

[Reciprocality]

29 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Precisely, knowledge is all there is, it is this knowledge (awareness) that cannot be placed in the box of conception that I would refer to as nondual.

It transcends the box by which it can be referred, there is no more awareness in the concept of it then there is outside the concept of it. Though knowledge can take the form of a priori sensibility, or mathematics a priori. Awareness transcends all these, it is present also when they are absent in us.

[Reciprocality]

34 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

As I've said, the contingent is imagination. We may properly discuss this now if you wish.

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

You can speak of imagination the ways you want to, but it will not change how without the sensibility of space there would be no comment. This is a contingency.

I do not consider things that are necessary imagined, but so do you. This is hilarious, but fine by me.

[Reciprocality]

Necessity can take two forms, it can be absolute and relative.

Existence is absolutely necessary, but sensibility is only relatively necessary, it is only necessary in us for us to operate.

[Reciprocality]

The absolute necessity of existence, transcends all in us. And is as such like a wavelength which goes trough us.

That there were something and not nothing, is our absolute identity.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

is only truth if reason has any validity, and to me it does. But you do not have to agree. But if you do not agree then stop arguing, there is nothing to argue about thereby.

Sorry, I had misread this.

34 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Necessity can take two forms, it can be absolute and relative.

Existence is absolutely necessary, but sensibility is only relatively necessary, it is only necessary in us for us to operate.

Now this is interesting. But look, not that I'm negating the truth of existence or anything, I just have to ask.. necessary for what, exactly? You mention that sensibility is necessary in order for to operate. So can you do the same with "the absolute necessity of existence", what exactly renders it necessary according to you? 

[A Fellow Lighter]

30 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The absolute necessity of existence, transcends all in us. And is as such like a wavelength which goes trough us.

That there were something and not nothing, is our absolute identity.

So necessary in the sense of identity - is that what you're saying? 

[A Fellow Lighter]

48 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

do not consider things that are necessary imagined, but so do you. This is hilarious, but fine by me

Only because nothing has actually ever been proven, by anyone. Sure, ideas have been proven as far as their modeling of the universe goes, but things in themselves, like matter or substance or an actual object, these supposed "things" have never been proven, due to the transitive and dissipative “structure" of the universe.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

It transcends the box by which it can be referred, there is no more awareness in the concept of it then there is outside the concept of it. Though knowledge can take the form of a priori sensibility, or mathematics a priori. Awareness transcends all these, it is present also when they are absent in us.

Precisely because it is absolute. Meaning you will find nothing outside of it. Babies too have awareness, right? And they cannot conceptualise anything, yet they know that which they know, whatever it is.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter I would definitely propose that babies conceptualize, it is the only way for them to navigate. 

Their intelligence is first and foremost sensible, not fantastical. Which means they render the empirical intuitions such as wetness or warmness or the objects of imagination such as chair or tree from a manifold of mathematical concepts, only in this way can they ever hope to trespass some territory.

There is only one cognitive alternative, which says that all babies does is learn from experience itself, this is an inductive fallacy. We have already gone trough this, there can not be induction all the way down. Flatness is a proof of that, a triangle is a proof of that. Every analytic mathematical concept is a proof of that.

Fantastical intelligence is synthetic, it creates something original trough the concepts that are innate, and the control of their body.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter

32 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Only because nothing has actually ever been proven, by anyone. Sure, ideas have been proven as far as their modeling of the universe goes, but things in themselves, like matter or substance or an actual object, these supposed "things" have never been proven, due to the transitive and dissipative “structure" of the universe.

Absolutely, things in themselves have not been proven. "matter" have only been proven as it relates to our mind, but that it is different to our mind has not been proven.

[Reciprocality]

45 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

So necessary in the sense of identity - is that what you're saying? 

The identity of us which never changes is our necessity, not our ego but that of us which had to be. That we exist is that of us which had to be, not us as our ego but us as "something at all" or "something opposed to nothing".

You can surely see that this is recursive, and so far as language is concerned what I am pointing towards could continue in its recursive nature forever.

Opposed does not mean anything here of course, since we speak of precisely the thing which has no opposite. It only seems that it has an opposite, but this thing is conceptual negation masquerading as something it is not.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

57 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Necessity can take two forms, it can be absolute and relative.

Existence is absolutely necessary, but sensibility is only relatively necessary, it is only necessary in us for us to operate.

57 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Sorry, I had misread this.

Now this is interesting. But look, not that I'm negating the truth of existence or anything, I just have to ask.. necessary for what, exactly? You mention that sensibility is necessary in order for to operate. So can you do the same with "the absolute necessity of existence", what exactly renders it necessary according to you? 

 

It is necessary because negation is something we are imagining right now, but which always goes away and which has no claim in opposition to it, even though we think that it has. We can not imagine away existence, negation simply will not remove it. 

Negation has a meaning to everything conceptual but not that which transcends all concept, existence.

Knowledge, existence, information, consciousness, experience, awareness, absolute identity, presence. All these have in common that nothing negates them, that their negation is an invention to makes synthetic sense of them.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

@Reciprocality I don't know, I mean I'm pretty sure that babies use instincts, not concepts, to navigate. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

 

It is necessary because negation is something we are imagining right now, but which always goes away and which has no claim in opposition to it, even though we think that it has. We can not imagine away existence, negation simply will not remove it. 

Negation has a meaning to everything conceptual but not that which transcends all concept, existence.

Knowledge, existence, information, consciousness, experience, awareness, absolute identity, presence. All these have in common that nothing negates them, that their negation is an invention to makes synthetic sense of them.

Hmm.. I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Negation is an act, let alone, a response, but how does one imagine it? Unless you use the term negation synonymously with omission then yes, I agree. One cannot omit the truth of existence.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

The identity of us which never changes is our necessity, not our ego but that of us which had to be. That we exist is that of us which had to be, not us as our ego but us as "something at all" or "something opposed to nothing".

You can surely see that this is recursive, and so far as language is concerned what I am pointing towards could continue in its recursive nature forever.

Opposed does not mean anything here of course, since we speak of precisely the thing which has no opposite. It only seems that it has an opposite, but this thing is conceptual negation masquerading as something it is not.

Yes.., well put. I see it, my friend.

[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. My claim is that you can experience all particular things as predicated on these a priori intuitions (x) such primarily as space.

So let's jump back to this here post. Is there above claim your claim for there being a duality in existence/knowledge?

[Reciprocality]

10 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

@Reciprocality I don't know, I mean I'm pretty sure that babies use instincts, not concepts, to navigate. 

And I think the territory is muddied between these, but I do not deny that for instance the sucking of a moms breast may be without the aid of concept, but it definitely is with the "aid" of sensible time, space and causality. 

Everything is connected least in the sense of a singular consciousness, but whether bodily instinct in a baby and concept also has connections seems very speculative but I must concede many instances where they definitely do. At the same time, we are breaching the realm of science itself, and it would probably be better if someone with expertise said something particular about it instead of me speaking in general.