Most things are imagined

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter The idea of the empirical intuition is also always itself empty, we seem to agree here.

We create identities synthetically a priori out of the analytic a posteriori empirical intuitions.

The only way we can do this is if these empirical intuitions comes with a preconditioned map.

We are extremely poor of discerning between pure concepts that are analytic a priori and the identities we have made by means of their imposition on the empirical. The capacity to distinguish these two is the essence of anti dogmatism.

The inherent problem of doing this is language and how it is never itself the pure concepts but instead the very identities rendered by means of the pure concepts.

 

So what then is induction? It comes on top of the rest, will my kitchen have all my knifes when I go there in an hour? I can only induce from past experience and the manifold identity trough which the kitchen "traveled" since last time. The identity of the kitchen is truly in opposition with itself, this is where isomorphism first comes to light, this is where we are trying to hold everything in our hands only to see how it fades away between our fingers. I consider the manifold of identities imagination (going back to how proof is empty), but given that they are all in one consciousness there is something totally cohesive about them. Minimal cohesion is sensibility, particular cohesion is concept.

You induce from the empirical, I did not say that it is itself induced (in fact, I can not imagine a more absurd idea than the empirical being induced the way you exposed it). What is induced is simply its identity, but the identity is always constituted by concept.

Since the empirical is not induced it can neither be imagined, and only in the empirical itself can all identities go away, something must remain when imagination goes away, this something is empty in concept, the thing in itself is empty in concept.

Ego death may be minimal cohesion by sensible time and space, and non-duality may be empirical without sensibility, this is speculative. Though ego is more of a spectrum, and indeed much though far from everything I write is spectral ( a matter of magnitude), I take shortcuts for the alternative is a differential calculus.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

21 hours ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

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?

No, that is futile. That is a mere question without possible answer. I consider everything of such nature pompous, I hate it with a passion and it seems to be the death of serious philosophy wherever it travels.

I should add that all such questions without possible answers are necessarily either badly stated or the answer is in the question itself, for it is impossible to wonder at something stupidly.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Razard86]

On 3/23/2022 at 4:06 PM, happyhappy said:

@Reciprocality @A Fellow Lighter a top notch quality discussion!

we want more of them here!

That is your perspective, all I see is word play.

https://blackmtncycles.com/make-everything-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler-albert-einstein/#:~:text=simpler.” Albert Einstein-,“Make everything as simple as possible,but not simpler.” Albert Einstein

Edited April 7, 2022 by Razard86

[Reciprocality]

@Razard86 Well if you are only seeing then word play is also all there is.

If I were to make everything as simple as possible I would need to write thousand word responses again and again, complex language and even syntax is introduced to minimize the effort. Not only in communication but even in thought. I have actually minimized the jargon, and have written many imprecise comments because of it.

It is your responsibility to actually familiarize yourself with English words, if I introduced my own words then things would be different.

Under determination is an extreme kind of problem, if anything is obvious by a mere "look" at this thread it should be that.

[Reciprocality]

I am curious though, and open to the idea that something I said were vacuous, for I hate sophistry and would hate it the most if I could sense it in myself.

To put it this way, if what I were here doing were theater and someone could point me to it then that would lift a heavy burden of my shoulders. Then again, if it is due to my stupidity that I can not say things so that you and others can understand it, how vacuous would I then be if I simply could not do better?

I am rather stupid than performative.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Razard86]

15 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Razard86 Well if you are only seeing then word play is also all there is.

If I were to make everything as simple as possible I would need to write thousand word responses again and again, complex language and even syntax is introduced to minimize the effort. Not only in communication but even in thought. I have actually minimized the jargon, and have written many imprecise comments because of it.

It is your responsibility to actually familiarize yourself with English words, if I introduced my own words then things would be different.

Under determination is an extreme kind of problem, if anything is obvious by a mere "look" at this thread it should be that.

Reciprocality.....you wouldn't need to write thousand word responses to make it simple that would just make it more complicated. I get it, you enjoy complexity. Complexity can be fun, but complexity is not something that is easily extractable because it can be interpreted multiple ways. I am more attracted to complexity on certain levels as well but I understand it is not something that is rather useful and is just a mind game.

Its not that am seeing word play, anything complex is word play. Simplicity is word play as well...its just less complex.

And yes I know simplicity and complex are really the same thing because much can be extracted from both.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Razard86

[A Fellow Lighter]

23 hours 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

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

Ego death may be minimal cohesion by sensible time and space, and non-duality may be empirical without sensibility, this is speculative. Though ego is more of a spectrum, and indeed much though far from everything I write is spectral ( a matter of magnitude), I take shortcuts for the alternative is a differential calculus.

So I hear and agree with everything you've stated thus far, except for this post right above ?. The problem is I'm not fully acquainted with the concept of ego, so I try to avoid it.

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

Since the empirical is not induced it can neither be imagined, and only in the empirical itself can all identities go away, something must remain when imagination goes away, this something is empty in concept, the thing in itself is empty in concept.

I agree with you here, strip away all identities and what remains is nonduality itself. Only question is can there be a intuition of such a modality if I may call it that?

I can tell that you use the term imagination rather conventionally. I'm only wondering if it can ever be possible for you to try to broaden this in a sort of all-encompassing was. Otherwise you leave no choice but to agree with you that the absence of imagination does include the possibility of a something remaining.

I mean what if imagination cannot be absent? What if there was something like a metaphysical (or multidimensional) imagination were reality suddenly has levels to its realness? This may very well sound ridiculous but only until we enter the realm of dreams. This, by the way, was the approach I was willing to take in proving to you that all is imagination without actually “killing you".

[A Fellow Lighter]

@Razard86 I honestly tried to make this a simple discussion as possible. But it would seem that in my attempt, I ended up overlooking a lot of what @Reciprocality was bringing to the table. So now the goal has changed from simply exchanging ideas, to learning from him the philosophical dimensions that would better this attempt in communing with him, and try to see the world from his lens.

Imagination is a very deep thing to discuss. There is no surprise if, in discussing it, it seems like word play. But I get, most of this stuff could come across as too confusing to the minds that simply wants direct answers.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

No, that is futile. That is a mere question without possible answer. I consider everything of such nature pompous, I hate it with a passion and it seems to be the death of serious philosophy wherever it travels.

I should add that all such questions without possible answers are necessarily either badly stated or the answer is in the question itself, for it is impossible to wonder at something stupidly.

??? And here I was thinking that epistemology was the most popular or favoured field in philosophy.

Yes, it is rather stupid isn't it? But maybe it wouldn't be so if it had incorporated 'the paradox' to somehow mean or become a pointer to a particular dimension to reality that the cognitive mind is yet to evolve onto.

It's too early to tell.

[Reciprocality]

48 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

So I hear and agree with everything you've stated thus far, except for this post right above ?. The problem is I'm not fully acquainted with the concept of ego, so I try to avoid it.

@A Fellow Lighter I would consider ego (so far as it is allowed to be an object in thought and not the subject, good luck with understanding correctly what I mean here) to go in and out of consciousness trough sensible time, as an object it is therefore analogous to appearances themselves. (Your ego as such disappears thus when there is sensible time without it in it) Emotions are connected to how much of ego there is in a given moment.

So far as ego is the subject, then it can not be referenced as object in a conceptual language. So far as ego as the subject disappears then sensible time also disappears, see? But this is very speculative and in some sense meaningless if language is cancelled from considering ego as subjective in the first place, as I alluded to.

The foundational thinking I endevour in here is Kantian, much that I say and question here can be found in the Critique of Pure Reason, a book I have not even finished because its conclusions were obvious from its premises and vice versa. If you were to pick it up you would at this point (130 responses back/forth) probably skim trough it's contents with far more ease than most would. Kant is amazing, I think you would love him.

30 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

??? And here I was thinking that epistemology was the most popular or favoured field in philosophy.

Yes, it is rather stupid isn't it? But maybe it wouldn't be so if it had incorporated 'the paradox' to somehow mean or become a pointer to a particular dimension to reality that the cognitive mind is yet to evolve onto.

It's too early to tell.

Yeah I anticipated this interpretation of what I meant, for I interpreted it like that myself after having written it. It is not completely wrong either, I love Epistemology, I simply do not class your question under it. 

The wonder by which your question regarding red is enforced is a matter of identity, and of mind (yeah I know this is an extraordinary claim). So far as it has any meaning, questions of knowledge is an oxymoron, at best you can reach knowledge that way by negating other alternatives.

But since we will disagree what constitutes epistemology, and that I also once thought of it as you did and could predict your interpretation, I can happily accept your definition/exposition of it. And could speak of it in your terms, in which case I do not hate epistemology either, simply find it pompous in the people who raise ""it's"" questions. (you may spot why I used (") four times there, I don't think I would). 

"Is this that I experience now known?" now that is an epistemic question, to which all affirmations are referential and never constitutional. (another dichotomy, sorry) The answer is yes, though as a belief it is empty, the affirmation of the question is empty, which is why it can be asked and given credit to as a belief, and why nobody ever felt satisfied by affirming it.

If you know something it is excessive to affirm it, see? Epistemology must be a resting point as well as the road leading to it, I do not hate the resting point or the road. And I have sympathy for those that never goes beyond it as such. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

The bracket usage is extensive at this point, due to my lack of English skills perhaps. But I see so many ways that all I say can be precisely what I do not say that I find them almost necessary where I spent them.

Edit: I use the term "spent" for any man with some wisdom must treat his usage of brackets with an almost economic scrutiny.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

52 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

@Razard86 I honestly tried to make this a simple discussion as possible. But it would seem that in my attempt, I ended up overlooking a lot of what @Reciprocality was bringing to the table. So now the goal has changed from simply exchanging ideas, to learning from him the philosophical dimensions that would better this attempt in communing with him, and try to see the world from his lens.

Imagination is a very deep thing to discuss. There is no surprise if, in discussing it, it seems like word play. But I get, most of this stuff could come across as too confusing to the minds that simply wants direct answers.

@A Fellow Lighter I have noticed that you have gotten to grips with much of my framework already, it clearly is not just I who were patient. So thank you I guess.

You can probably laugh a good deal at how that which were seemingly incomprehensible at first now makes good sense, and even more how the inner framework of the mind in retrospect were dismissive at first (wherever that occurred in particular for you). For me there is no feeling quite like it. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

18 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I would consider ego (so far as it is allowed to be an object in thought and not the subject, good luck with understanding correctly what I mean here) to go in and out of consciousness trough sensible time, as an object it is therefore analogous to appearances themselves. (Your ego as such disappears thus when there is sensible time without it in it) Emotions are connected to how much of ego there is in a given moment.

So far as ego is the subject, then it can not be referenced as object in a conceptual language. So far as ego as the subject disappears then sensible time also disappears, see? But this is very speculative and in some sense meaningless if language is cancelled from considering ego as subjective in the first place, as I alluded to.

I appreciate your efforts in trying to elucidate the ego to me, I sincerely do. But I really cannot become aware of it in my direct experience, and so I fear that any discussion around/about would prove to shallow for my liking. If you must mention it in making a crucial point, then can we speak about it in its defined or described form, rather than the word itself? I honestly don't resonate with the idea of ego, and I find discussing to be seriously draining on my part.

25 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The foundational thinking I endevour in here is Kantian, much that I say and question here can be found in the Critique of Pure Reason, a book I have not even finished because its conclusions were obvious from its premises and vice versa. If you were to pick it up you would at this point (130 responses back/forth) probably skim trough it's contents with far more ease than most would. Kant is amazing, I think you would love him.

I will definitely check him out hearing about his work from you.

[A Fellow Lighter]

27 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The wonder by which your question regarding red is enforced is a matter of identity, and of mind (yeah I know this is an extraordinary claim). So far as it has any meaning, questions of knowledge is an oxymoron, at best you can reach knowledge that way by negating other alternatives.

The awareness of red is a matter of identity? Quite extraordinary in deed, my friend. But I am open to where you're going with this. Personally, if you do not know what I know, then I beg the question - how can I tell that you're a conscious organism?

32 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Is this that I experience now known?"

Or maybe just existential. If not known then what? Nothing. So why even question it, lest the question is who knows this now?  But that is a question of self and falls swiftly out of philosophy and straight into mysticism.

36 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

(another dichotomy, sorry)

No worries. I can see why it's necessary in making your point. Which I would've agreed to should I have overlooked my point above.

@Reciprocality you do realise that affirmation can only go as far as there is method, right? I'm just pointing that out, before we haven't found ourselves in circles. 

38 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The bracket usage is extensive at this point, due to my lack of English skills perhaps. But I see so many ways that all I say can be precisely what I do not say that I find them almost necessary where I spent them.

Edit: I use the term "spent" for any man with some wisdom must treat his usage of brackets with an almost economic scrutiny.

No worries, friend. They're helpful.

 

29 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter I have noticed that you have gotten to grips with much of my framework already, it clearly is not just I who were patient. So thank you I guess.

You can probably laugh a good deal at how that which were seemingly incomprehensible at first now makes good sense, and even more how the inner framework of the mind in retrospect were dismissive at first (wherever that occurred in particular for you). For me there is no feeling quite like it. 

Thank you, friend. I'm really trying my best here, and yes a good laugh is very much due ? in retrospect. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

3 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

should add that all such questions without possible answers are necessarily either badly stated or the answer is in the question itself, for it is impossible to wonder at something stupidly

Who was it again that said understanding is only half the answer? Anyway, I also think that the answer to such questions is simply more awareness. They are questions that demand awareness rather than reply/respond.