Most things are imagined

[Reciprocality]

9 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

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

Without x as the sensible intuitions there would never be a belief of the independence of matter, something which unfolds by means of the very sensibility.

But the idea that the matter is a part of a duality of two opposite modes of existence is a different claim than in quotation, though dependent on the substance of the quotation. The belief that the experience of this matter is the matter itself is also a duality, but this is a materlialism which thinks that the other part of the duality can be the experience itself, or very similar to it.

You do not have to be, and most are not, meta cognizant of how these sensibilities are necessary for dualism to actually believe in dualism.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

But the idea that the matter is a part of a duality of two opposite modes of existence is a different claim than in quotation, though dependent on the substance of the quotation. The belief that the experience of this matter is the matter itself is also a duality, but this is a materlialism which thinks that the other part of the duality can be the experience itself, or very similar to it.

You lost me. What are these things that without which would leave consciousness to be nondual and all things impossible? 

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

Without x as the sensible intuitions there would never be a belief of the independence of matter, something which unfolds by means of the very sensibility.

What are “sensible intuitions”? Can you give an example?

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter No, I'm done repeating myself. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

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

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.

13 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter No, I'm done repeating myself. 

You don't have to repeat anything. You could just copy and paste the post where you believe you've already given me an example. We've covered so much it's quite possible that I may have overlooked it or I'm failing to recall it. But I get it, I've exhausted your patience. 

I was particularly interested in the above post where you mention a intuition that one does not imagine but instead it imagines you.

I was only wondering if you had meant that to be an alternative for the duality of “sensible intuition” such as the dragon you had mentioned or the chair in the living room, and the “priori intuition” such as space, time, and causality. This is the duality that I wanted to know if you were referring to. And that the collapse of this duality through the elimination of distinction, somehow leaves the possibility of there being an intuition that somehow imagines us. 

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter In a day to day life consciousness will be all there is for us, the idea of the thing in itself is a rational idea and will always collapse in pure awareness. The duality therefore, is mystical. It collapses absolutely.

But it is an honest wonder at how you and me can be two peculiar and particular modes of consciousness, if there is no duality to which we are both in opposition then the belief that there is a reason we are different is necessary an appeal to one of two different formulations of a god, either one who is willing from nothing or willing from a higher imposition. If it is the latter then it simply makes possible things actual, if it is the former then it makes actual things from "nothing". Both of these has to be pantheistic and monotheistic. If something is willing from nothing then it can will itself away, our existence is a proof of this being impossible. (there is one speculative formulation of this evidence and one certain formulation of this proof, the one in which substances or appearances in consciousness are necessary (speculative) the other whereby existence is necessary (certain))

I believe we are rendered necessary by our opposition to the thing in itself, I believe unconscious organisms is an absolute impossibility.

But again, I am not too interested in my beliefs, I know very well why they are as they are and at all, but it is the knowledge by which they are built I am primarily concerned with explicating, you are right however that my patience has dropped, I will not copy paste my own comments, find what you look for, there is a lot there. 

The duality between sensibility and consciousness is conceptual, never perfect. I have stated 10 times that consciousness transcends everything that is of us.

But that does not make the sensibility of space/time, causation itself conceptual, though every possible instantiation of it in thought and in language is.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

I was particularly interested in the above post where you mention a intuition that one does not imagine but instead it imagines you.

Yes, the ego I consider to be imagined by the minimal impositions in consciousness, the sensibilities. 

Whatever appears by means of these sensibilities can strengthen the ego, lets say in a fight or in a debate, but since the ego is always there when the sensibilities are there (at least for me) I consider it imagined by them, in turn it is the ego which can convey this message to you.

When space, time and causation disappears the ego goes away, but when there is only these things in awareness (no appearance or thought rendered by means of them) the ego is non the less minimal. 

[Reciprocality]

"I was only wondering if you had meant that to be an alternative for the duality of “sensible intuition”"

Intuition can be of the sensibilities or empirical, color is an empirical intuition, space time and causality is a sensible intuition, the latter is a priori the former is a posteriori.

space is a form of a priori sensible intuition. I did not mean that it were an alternative, no.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter Rational beliefs are all empty in themselves, and serve only a purpose in sensible causation.

I believe Australia is a land of Sydney to which I can also travel, but I know no such thing.

The belief is rational, yet empty itself, and only filled to the extent time brings about its proof in space, it can only do that by causation.

But as soon as the belief is proven then it is no longer belief and changes form to truth, all belief is therefore in itself a matter of ethics.

Yet truth is never negated, such that all beliefs are constituted by truth.

 

To actually understand all this, further distinctions is necessarily made, but when "all is imagination" is the only lens trough which everything is seen, these distinctions becomes fantastical. By which point I argue one ought to stop speaking, find a cave and tend to nothing.

[A Fellow Lighter]

24 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Rational beliefs are all empty in themselves, and serve only a purpose in sensible causation.

I believe Australia is a land of Sydney to which I can also travel, but I know no such thing.

The belief is rational, yet empty itself, and only filled to the extent time brings about its proof in space, it can only do that by causation.

Well, maybe saying the belief is empty isn't exactly the way to put it. I mean can't we at least make the argument that the belief is filled with experience, such as the trial and error of day-to-day life, in that it is exactly this experience that renders it substantial rather than empty?

For instance, I have never been to Australia, though I've never actually walked the land I do believe that it has dry land and surrounded by the ocean. This is a rational belief based on my experience with my continent. 

32 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

To actually understand all this, further distinctions is necessarily made, but when "all is imagination" is the only lens trough which everything is seen, these distinctions becomes fantastical. By which point I argue one ought to stop speaking, find a cave and tend to nothing.

? The cave bid actually gets me every time .. quite typical isn't it, or should I say inevitable for one who's on the awakening path?

But anyway, my argument would boil down to this: though the “all is imagination lens" immediately implies a fantastical reality about it, perhaps we shouldn't be all to quick as to say this imagination is equivalent to the meaninglessness of.. let's say.. a day dream, a fantasy yeah? That nothing worth learning or worth attending (if I may put it so) can be found from it. So much so that it would be better for the one seeking knowledge to tend to nothing in that dark empty cave.

If if imagination can have substance, though as subtle or imperceptible as a stream of radio waves then this faculty we call imagination has a function more to it then the simple making  of distinctions for the sake of human (or animal) operation, perhaps it's that medium of expression, that mode of consciousness that we learn of the innate power of 'existence'. That power that is behind all these happenings/phenomena we call our existence.

I don't know if I'm being sound here, tell me what you think.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter All beliefs says that there is something more than consciousness presently (that is their whole function, the idea that there is something more is always empty for no other reason then that one tries to escape truth by making truth subject to something in opposition to itself. Proof is rendered under truth, but truth is never proven, belief is never proven though instead the identity of Australia changes form once one travels there. Belief is empty of proof. and once Australia is seen nothing were really proven, only truth immanent. Yet thought and communication seems to bid itself to the idea of provability spontaneously, so we are better of "proving" things along our way, if we are to engage in communication WE BETTER be rationalists in conduct, there is indeed no other way so we can choose so accept ourself or not accept ourself in this way.

Our cognition is trying to escape something, constantly yet is bound to do so. Just like we can speculate consciousness itself doing in escaping the thing in itself.

57 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

If if imagination can have substance, though as subtle or imperceptible as a stream of radio waves then this faculty we call imagination has a function more to it then the simple making  of distinctions for the sake of human (or animal) operation, perhaps it's that medium of expression, that mode of consciousness that we learn of the innate power of 'existence'. That power that is behind all these happenings/phenomena we call our existence.

 

It is hard for me to pin down what you hear mean by "substance", then again I don't know if we would find agreement on what imperceptible, imagination, function, distinction, operation and expression really means. 

Yet I intuit something in your expression above beyond my own preconceived thoughts, though if I were to flesh it out there would be too much association or imprecision, and to little rigor to be worth it.

Substance (x) has two general different meanings, one whereby something x lasts forever and of which we are as egos a mere visitors yet as consciousness its creator. And the other whereby x is a particular in a manifold of the thing in itself, in opposition to consciousness yet rendered conceptually by means of consciousness. The former is idealism the latter physicalism.

Substance is knowable in the former and believable in the latter, the latter is absurd for it points to the object of its belief as filled when it is empty. 

It is not empty of immanent truth, but of proof. While the former is imminently true, and impossibly proven. 

Yet it will never be true as a synthetic proposition, for it requires proof to be such.

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Well, maybe saying the belief is empty isn't exactly the way to put it

To find an exact way to put this particular thought is a hassle. 

I am not married to any expression.

[Reciprocality]

When I say that existence is necessary, I point towards the eternity of ideal (former) substance, but as an expression this must always be a mere belief, conceptually it is not true.

It is self evident that appearances as substance are never totally out of existence (thereby eternal in meta time), almost every rationalist Leibniz, Spinoza, Langan, Kant, Aristotles among others knows this, but every attempt at proving it is futile. (most of these tried and failed, some of them were dogmatic and thought that that the appearance were matter itself).

[A Fellow Lighter]

10 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter All beliefs says that there is something more than consciousness presently (that is their whole function, the idea that there is something more is always empty for no other reason then that one tries to escape truth by making truth subject to something in opposition to itself.

Ah.. I understand perfectly here what you mean. Yes, the idea that there is something outside direct experience is, in its own sense, empty and fictional. So you consider beliefs to be the opposite of truth?

20 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Proof is rendered under truth, but truth is never proven, belief is never proven though instead the identity of Australia changes form once one travels there. Belief is empty of proof. and once Australia is seen nothing were really proven, only truth immanent. Yet thought and communication seems to bid itself to the idea of provability spontaneously, so we are better of "proving" things along our way, if we are to engage in communication WE BETTER be rationalists in conduct, there is indeed no other way so we can choose so accept ourself or not accept ourself in this way.

Alright, I see what mean.

22 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Our cognition is trying to escape something, constantly yet is bound to do so. Just like we can speculate consciousness itself doing in escaping the thing in itself.

Bound? You mean because we're always thinking about things in trying to figure out what's what? I don't know if you're using the term "Bound" to assert a powerlessness in the matter, as if there's nothing we can do but believe.

[A Fellow Lighter]

38 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Substance (x) has two general different meanings, one whereby something x lasts forever and of which we are as egos a mere visitors yet as consciousness its creator.

I mean this substance.. the "former"

[A Fellow Lighter]

43 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

It is not empty of immanent truth, but of proof. While the former is imminently true, and impossibly proven. 

Sounds about right. Although, I wish we could have an extensive discussion about proof. Seriously, what exactly constitutes as proof? Because if we're talking in terms of scientific experiments, then yes, something can be proven for as long as it's idea (the idea of what the thing is X) holds against the tides of truth.

[A Fellow Lighter]

41 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

When I say that existence is necessary, I point towards the eternity of ideal (former) substance, but as an expression this must always be a mere belief, conceptually it is not true.

It is self evident that appearances as substance are never totally out of existence (thereby eternal in meta time), almost every rationalist Leibniz, Spinoza, Langan, Kant, Aristotles among others knows this, but every attempt at proving it is futile. (most of these tried and failed, some of them were dogmatic and thought that that the appearance were matter itself).

The problem is just this.. how does one account for experience without first adapting a belief? Even science itself is based on a belief, and that is the belief of physical matter and space. I think you referred to such things as priori intuitions. 

I mean do you see the problem, here. In figuring things out this ability is of course bound in conceptualising everything and having to accept some of these concepts as truth for the sake of causation and experience.

[A Fellow Lighter]

On 05/04/2022 at 4:08 PM, Reciprocality said:

space time and causality is a sensible intuition, the latter is a priori the former is a posteriori

How is space a posterior? Aren't these simply priori intuitions one uses to account and calculate your day-to-day operations?

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter I meant the former before that, so empirical intuition not sensible space, space is a priori. We are imposed by our sensations, they are never completely different from thought for they are all in consciousness but in a conceptual domain such as language it is important to distinguish between a posteriori and a priori, many would disagree what in particular constitutes as empirical intuition, for instance that of balance.

For if it is [empirical intuition a posteriori] then it still it has to be rendered in accordance to conceptual a priori self correction mechanism for one to actually be able to balance with the feets, now sure one could label the whole thing as "instinctual", but I am concerned with avoiding all types of inductive fallacies, which is everywhere in modern science.

Just like we could never reach mathematical analytical concepts (flatness, triangle, roundness, qube, etc) by mere induction, we can neither reach balance as a concept by such induction, for then we would have to induce in order to balance. What makes this vague is that we balance automatically, the synthesis of empirical intuition a posteriori constituted as feet and a priori balance is necessary for us to walk, our subconscious synthesize these things like so much else for us, yet what I have reached is a place where this synthesis has come conscious. Everything the subconscious mind does is inherently vague, and even worse it is an empty belief that there is such a thing as the subconscious.

The only inductive thing is here language itself (no, actually the ground is inductive also if we were not to look at it), though we go full circle (back to my original post) if we now question how it is possible for us to make identities by induction constituting memories which masquerades as an a priori concept itself. That we can do this effortlessly is the reason people actually believes that language is a "true reference" to the conceptual, and that some may find morals "objective". (though the latter goes deeper than language itself), among other dogmatic beliefs many holds.

I will answer the other comments later.

[Reciprocality]

Everything that is a posteriori must by necessity be induced from when it is taken up in memory if it has any meaning after a said experience.

Science is built on these inductions.

[A Fellow Lighter]

43 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

if we now question how it is possible for us to make identities by induction constituting memories which masquerades as an a priori concept itself

Okay, so then this is a question of epistemology, yes? Like how do I know that what I experience as red is what you experience as red? Obviously, this I cannot learn via language due to the fact that it is inductive itself. It may very well be the case that what you experience as red is what I actually experience as orange, but we will both call it red simply because that's how we were taught to make the particular experience of a peculiar colour relatable. 

Sensibility and relatability aren't the same thing, inherently. Hence anything taught through language is bound to be inductive and conceptual in its own accord. However, I don't believe that any of that affects or somehow touches on the matter of what we consider perception. We never learn what the thing is when we ask "What is that?" We only learn how to make it relatable, however the posteriori is never actually translated, translation occurs only at the intuitive level that what was once simply truth itself has become a subject of language/discussion. What was once purely truth has become the dogma that we call 'object'.

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

Everything that is a posteriori must by necessity be induced from when it is taken up in memory if it has any meaning after a said experience.

Science is built on these inductions.

The meaning lies in the idea itself. All sciences are the sciences of ideas. So long as the idea of the truth serves well then it is quite rational to believe in it. The posteriori is not induced, it is only the idea literally being conceived in the mind, the idea of what the posteriori is.