:)

[Reciprocality]

Life is a teaching in that though everything that matters the most comes for free the spice on top matters too, and that the former is the price for the latter.

[Reciprocality]

If you train yourself to notice the difference between someone who is in need for his concept and someone who is in want of that need you will therewith know the difference between someone who live as humans have done for a half million years, in search for a fitting narrative, and one who rises above it.

[Reciprocality]

If it is confusing to anyone here that someone whose every statement is a theorem could end up in this forum and maintain that it is here they belong then consider how ridiculous it really is to think, as they all do in academia to various extents, that narratives exists independently of any narrator, or that houses exists as material and independent realities, I mean this is the height of insanity yet it has been the norm for how many years now?, and every half-baked philosophy made during thee centuries are made from attempts at bridging the gap made from that belief by means of logic, which of course is impossible when the foundation is already absurd.

I would rather be misunderstood by everyone inside this forum than everyone outside it.

 

Spiral dynamics stage green postmodern thought of parts of academia has its conclusion right, yet it rests on no foundation to which it is aware, that is, there are no facts, the foundation is that reality is identical with the perceiver, and that the concept of "fact" is made from the opposite supposition, but when you still maintain that there is an independent reality and also that this independent reality exists to every perceiver yet reject the proposition of a factual reality then you get the worst of both world by attempting to get the best of both worlds, the construct we are left with from these people is summarised as follows: "There are my truths and then there are your truths." 

 

It is impossible to know anything through your beliefs, and only possible to believe anything through your knowledge.

The proposition that there is a factual reality is the converse of the above statement.

[Reciprocality]

Have you ever noticed that your state of mind at any given point is a consequence of what you have been doing in the hours, days, weeks and even years leading up to it? And that the peace in this state is proportional to the absence of story/narrative contained in that process?

[Reciprocality]

If the stuff I have written on this forum the last week were read by an advanced humanoid civilisation from hundred thousand years in the future not only would what I said be obvious (were they to interpret it in the context of the meaning of words anno 2023) but it would not matter to them.

The reason it can be complex or impenetrable to you yet obvious for others is, as unintuitive as it would seem, that thoughts are inherently simple.

Every thought is the metric for the next one, just like how in the four dimensional simultaneity every monad is a reflection of every other, and so when I think any one of my concepts the rest of my conceptual frame follows, only when we are forced to reconcile contradictions will what is simple become one step less so.

 

The inherent simplicity of conceptual thoughts is contained in how they are without exceptions built from non-contradiction, except for in intuitive geometry, where they are built from non-opposition or impenetrability.

The non-opposition of the world of causality, or simply impenetrability, in the fifth dimension of time is synthetic logic, it goes without exception from conclusion to conclusion (simultaneity to simultaneity) without regard for premises and decomposition, the coherence of this world is built through our subconscious mind (or whatever the fuck the universe "is" itself) and the opposite method of world building, found only in the conscious mind, is deductive logic (the only conscious logic), that is, the principle of non-contradiction.

[Reciprocality]

Many thinks that character is an egoic construct, yet that can not be so for nobody has one of their own, and have instead only the character of others.

As a consequence of this ^ understanding can you theorise that it takes real struggle as opposed to creativity to develop character in the world, again, it does not come from within, but is instead projected onto you from without.

The means by which people project onto you the character they find in you is identical with the means by which they find patterns in things, and so if you never had to struggle in your life this will take an identical nature in you as it does in others, just like how the seed for two trees will be identical for the one who holds them in their hands yet the trees themselves bifurcate into entirely different shapes.

 

What actually happens is that people who never had to struggle try to synthesise the behaviour of other people into an ideation they call "themselves" and can live half their life unaware of how their true character in not yet existent.

True struggle is absent except for in the trenches, do you think soldiers are self-conscious?

[Reciprocality]

When you think too much every concrete instantiation of reality becomes an element in a conceptual system, and you no longer see the wonder of life under these conditions, and what is worse, time begins to tick forwards faster.

This recognition is more than anything else what has made me wary of studying science, for I would then begin to live life faster through constant predication of the data of the senses.

That being filled up with a million fantasies from scientific textbooks is the standard for "educated men" when all it does is make your intelectual matabolism run faster and your dying day closer, is revolting.

 

An ethic/utility concern must soon be discovered in scientific communities where questions concerning not only what information is superior to another but also whether the information is superior to its own absence in the human who thinks it. 

[Reciprocality]

Most people on this forum has me confounded, all they talk about is themselves, or is said in implication towards something about themselves, yet they purport that it is not there.

How so many people are able to do this identical thing and fail to notice how ridiculous it is, not to speak about how obvious it is that they are only doing it because other people are too, and how even more ridiculous that is, would have me in tears of laughter if it weren't for the insight that if I were them I would do the same thing and that in so far as they do not harm anyone there is no good reason to separate myself from them, they will at some time or another be at peace with the limitations of their ego, they have come way too far not to.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

When they say "mememememe" I say "thisthisthisthisthisthis" 

If I began to write about myself I would feel terribly ill, but it is obvious that since what humans wants are stories by the bed so they can sleep well during the night I should give some wriggle room for myself to reacquire their methods.

[Reciprocality]

I were always able to fit in, but what I did not know then that I do know today is that I were also always able to not to, and so what has happened during all these years when though I integrated their stories and opinions of me to become similar to them I were only fooling myself while when they underwent the same process they were fooled by others.

They are today living under the veil of their childhood, they repeat ten times the patterns they are aware of while I repeat a tenth of the patterns I am aware of. Dissimulation has me in extreme control. 

Edit: this is obviously a story, and far from a literal statistical truth, yet it is far more true than it is false.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

The ego is a sick fuck, it will make a narrative out of everything, its most flawless conceptual systems becomes its possessions and is now thought as "its".

Everything will in some way or another become about it. 

It is obvious once you see it, how wondrous it must be not to.

Or let us entertain the obvious elephant in the room, perhaps it is only my own ego I speak of, perhaps others ego IS infinite god? And it is I who is in want of becoming god? 

[Reciprocality]

Consider that this moment right now were seen in gods eyes, and how ridiculous, void of context, meaningless and silly it would look?

We give life all the context and baggage this moment needs not to be absolutely worthless, it could be said that the moment is a means for the context we give it, that the purpose of substance is self-realisation. That the purpose of subjects are their predicates.

Yet it is when the subjects themselves are seen that the most amount of worth is made possible, through deliberate creations that approaches ideals by subordinating the substance to our self. And so it is that in art we have find meaning.

[Reciprocality]

That circles have 360 degrees is not an axiom, nor is it an axiom that two lines that cross one another form four angles, if axioms were statements concerning the possibility of truth then reality were created out of logic.

Instead "circles" are axioms, their decomposition in our analysis of their nature follows logically and causally from their nature, the form of logic is non-contradiction the form of causation is synthetic impenetrability and the form of geometry is analytic impenetrability.

The homogenous of any heterogeneous is the axiomatic structure of reality, your statements concerning the possibility of truth takes the intellectual place of the homogenous when you fail to conceive of its real character.

 

Axioms concerning truth can not be other than concepts the rejection of the plurality of which are inconsistent with one another.

Axioms that does not concern truth are simply imaginings the inconsistency in the plurality of the rejection of which is creative. 

 

You simply can not prove the relations between your thoughts as you think them, this is to ask of your consciousness that it splits into two and that you become a hundred fold more than your already are. Instead axioms are perpetual productions of the ground for consistency, axioms are immanent self-subsistent truths.

Axioms are the creation of metrics. They are unbelievable, that is, they can not be believed in, again, they are immanent truths, you don't get to believe by means of the circle that it has 360 degrees, instead 360 degrees is an additional axiom imposed on the circle from inductive or exhaustive "proofs", the imposition is a creation of belief systems through conjunction.

And then the mathematicians will do what is absolutely unheard of, they will literally define the circle by means of their conjunction of choice, and will have done what is nothing more than circular reasoning.

Axioms concerning truth are nothing except those that never contradict one another, for except for immanent truth there is only logical truth. 

 

Contradictions among these axioms have only one possible cause, and that is in failure of completing the set of them all. Godels incompleteness theorem takes axioms as statements, and fails entirely the concept of completeness and the concept of axioms.

Reality is a synthesis of the complete set of axioms with itself, it does not treat the axioms as a decomposition, but instead as a simultaneous unity, our logic will never suffice through decomposition of the synthesis of reality the self-subsistence of each axiom the coherence of reality, not because the coherence does not follow from the axioms, but because we are infinitely more limited than to ever exhaust them all.

Again, to believe that axioms are statements is to say that regarding the things your first begun with in your reasoning you didn't actually begin with them at all, already here we see that your definition of an axiom is not only inconsistent, but itself an inconsistent axiom under your own definition of axiom.

 

Axioms precede definitions, they are subject and predicate in unity, this is the meaning of self-subsistence. This is the inverse of substance, that is, self-subsistence is something without predicates.

The self-subsistence of substance is both something that is a predicate of nothing and also has no predicates, and this is what axioms are when you do not viciously apply them in a theorem.

[Reciprocality]

Every thought is itself simple, and every thought is immanent truth, and every thought is indivisible and every thought is self-subsistent and every thought is substance and every thought is axiomatic.

Their connection among one another are almost identical to the connection of monads in simultaneity, and so too are the whole human species with each of its little characters identical to either of these.

I can not fail to be correct, the connection between monads is an illusion, the connection between thoughts is an illusion and the connection between people is an illusion. Instead the whole is contained in the part. 

Time is when all I just said becomes weird, for in the crystalisation and chaotic process of causation or in other words in the diminution of the mode of substance the relation between things changes yet the things themselves remains the same. And the character this identity vs divergence duality takes is very different between the three layers of reality. 

[Reciprocality]

In the monadic layer of four dimensional simultaneity you will find the relation between each monad in the three-dimensional reflection of each monad within each monad.

In the personal layer of the most emergent existence you will find each person as such a reflection in each of the others ("each" as confined to limited social spheres), but since the surface of these reflections are far from like mirrors then time and matter will serve each person as a dialectical method for approaching the essence of one another.

In pure thought every thought is contained in every other, and here we can use proportion rules and intensities to calculate their summation in any moment, the intensity of self-awareness is a reflection of how many thoughts are contained in the one one has at a given moment, or rather, how intensely they imply one another, that time goes faster at old age is nothing but a consequence of this.

Enlightenment is the dissociation with the aforementioned relation itself between the thoughts, that is, in finding in the thought an absence which were always before a presence.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

Personally I think in whole statements, or something like that, I am never and have never been in in confusion regarding the difference between my thought and the word I use to refer to it, which is why these kinds of things comes so easy.

The words are accidents in the substance of concepts or ideas, and every word must be justified in some or other way and in some or other timeframe.

Which is why I would never do something like beginning with definitions.

And also, in relation to what were said earlier, axioms can not be defined. Again, that would be logicism, instead axioms can only be exposed.

If you think that axioms can be defined then that is, necessarily, like hoping that your computer will begin to think when you give it inputs.

[Reciprocality]

There are two kinds of intuitions, 

1. axiomatic intuition, that is, of indivisibles and homogenous things.

2. material intuition, which without following logical steps concludes in some or other way correctly.

The former is always subject, the latter always predicate.

[Reciprocality]

Axioms are personal entities and have only intentional character, extensional character is approached through inductive justification, never reached.

Philosophy has nothing to do with the latter, and only every anything to do with the former, which is why, even if I have solved philosophy, other people can only refuse so under their axioms and what becomes inconsistent definitions. Unless they intuit axioms and experience therwith a world that I do not.

It is only possible to ask questions based on bringing life to axioms, their "philosophical questions" are rarely questions at all, but at best expressions of awe and wonder.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

There are two kinds of logic, that is, two kinds of guaranteed conclusions, the one rests on a foundation you take as synthetically true predicate, the other rests on a foundation without predication.

A foundation without predication is conceptual-substance, that is, a mere wish to think a duality without reference to the inconsistencies this duality were once made as solution for.

The conclusions reached by means of the former are always valid when the premises are, the conclusions reached by the latter are never true of anything, for mere logic is only an engagement with the universal form of thought, the execution of non-contradiction, or simply: the being of intellect.

Non-duality of object and subject bares striking similarities to pure logic, they are both states emptied of content, so too is true of a mind at rest, where though nothing is imagined the condition for imagination (as intelligence itself) is self-evident. 

When I were a child I used to wonder "what really is the difference between closing my eyes and being dead" not noticing before after the fact that the question itself were one of the infinite of ways this too, in a state without seeing, were different from death.

 

Modern Philosophy is in the burdensome task of producing the offspring of the former kind of foundation by means solely of the latter one, while Philosophy Proper asks no question it can fail to answer. 

 

Faith is the only method by which, through myth and psychological conscience (as the content and form of inner balance), anything discovered through pure logic by means of pure concept, as mere production of conceptual-substance, becomes truth-functional. The distinction between faith and belief is in fact impossibly conceived (in philosophy)  before one rejects faith through the differentiation of 1. axiomatic predicate and 2. axiomatic subject. Outside philosophy this distinction of faith and belief is warranted already through justification or lack thereof, and it is this latter version of the distinction which is misapplied to either a) axiomatic predicates of philosophy, since it is impossible to justify such a predicate and therefore b) conclusions derived from these predicates.

Mysticism is the only destinations from where both kinds of axioms are let go of, and no synthetic proposition, nor the set of them all, are accepted to ever capture the immensity of reality, nihilism is a prolonged state of dread of this realisation, and realism the opposite, wherein not only the immensity of reality is captured but it is captured through reference to the mere power of judgement.

 

Do you have any idea the amount of thinking it took me to discover something so simple as the semantic difference between an axiomatic subject and an axiomatic predicate, and the feeling when you finally have arrived in explicit duality where you only up until then had been in intuition?

Edited June 7, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

Examples of axiomatic predicates: (note that some such axioms amounts semantically to definitions, and are therefore thinkable in both directions) (you should also note that these statements can involve mere ideas, instead of concepts)

        You can insert subject of choice.

- I am a man

- A circle is always 360 degrees

- There are paradoxes

- Mortality

- Insanity

 

Examples of axiomatic subjects: (this is what an axiom actually is)

Circle vs Line

Contradiction vs Coherence

Up vs Down

Past vs Future

Degree of rotation vs Extention of motion

Whole vs Part

Unit vs Metric

Truth vs Falsity

If you believe these axioms have anything in themselves to do with predicates and properties then I don't know what more I can do, you are just inconsistent on purpose at that point.

The axioms can not be true under conditions, that is the very nature of axioms, they are instead conditions for conditioned truth, it is not that we fail at justifying them as is the case with the mere "axiomatic" predicates but that they are instead the oxygen to our lungs, immanent truth.