What is your self

[Reciprocality]

Have you observed that people naturally enjoy conversations? Have you ever reflected on the mechanism in conversations which makes them enjoy it so much? 

It is simple, they enjoy it because it gives the most with the least effort, much like "laws" of physics or path to least resistance, and the reason conversations gives them so much is that the ideas in their heads does not need to be built from the ground up but ignites spontaneously due to the shared language.

This spontaneity is to the man tearing down another's sandcastle what the inverse is to the man building it up, in one way but not in the other.

Can you spot the similarity? The analogy?

 

Why is it that we say that it is easier to defend yourself than to attack someone else? 

Why is it easier to contradict someone else than to be the one who asserted something?

 

I will refrain from given my perspective on it, but would enjoy to see what someone else can come up with, it all ties ultimately to the title.

[Razard86]

On 2/21/2024 at 3:16 PM, Reciprocality said:

Have you observed that people naturally enjoy conversations? Have you ever reflected on the mechanism in conversations which makes them enjoy it so much? 

It is simple, they enjoy it because it gives the most with the least effort, much like "laws" of physics or path to least resistance, and the reason conversations gives them so much is that the ideas in their heads does not need to be built from the ground up but ignites spontaneously due to the shared language.

This spontaneity is to the man tearing down another's sandcastle what the inverse is to the man building it up, in one way but not in the other.

Can you spot the similarity? The analogy?

 

Why is it that we say that it is easier to defend yourself than to attack someone else? 

Why is it easier to contradict someone else than to be the one who asserted something?

 

I will refrain from given my perspective on it, but would enjoy to see what someone else can come up with, it all ties ultimately to the title.

First notice what was bolded. ^^^^Do you notice what is being hinted at?

[Reciprocality]

@Razard86  If you are hinting to the self-referential nature of the spontaneity of conversation then yes I noticed it, that I am curious to know what someone else thinks about why we in general are curious to know what someone else thinks I perform the very thing on which I base the question.

What is unclear however (in the case I noticed the right hint above) is why you would hint at that which is the very observation I based my questions on instead of engaging the questions?

 

If on the other hand you were hinting to the nature of self-referential in general then the last statement in the original post already did so, In that case it would be very unclear why instead of affirming my perspective directly (and hopefully extrapolating on it) you ask me to notice what I myself had already hinted to?

[Reciprocality]

The self is to each of your concepts what the ineffable quality of them is to the properties they entail.

Imagine for instance if you are in the middle of a conversation and words does not present themselves to you where they are supposed to, or if late at night when you lay in the bed the concepts does not automatically co-ordinate and present you with new perspectives, all of these retardations happens as consequence of the disillusionment of the self, because the self is what nature is in need for to operate efficiently and ultimately at all.

The properties of a concept/predicate, say thickness and colour, would not come together at the right moment by force, and the necessary spontaneity for them to come together is that in the predicate which is ineffible. The same is true for the concepts themselves, they would not come together in the right moment if the ineffable self inhibits itself.

I do not deny that the relations between things are on some level illusory, and that only direct experience is truth, I deny the assumption that truth is more important than purpose -- which is what you propose by inhibiting yourself.

Freedom from self-inhibition is curiously more self-less, it gives others your nature raw and makes them learns quicker, makes you grow quicker, makes you learn faster.

[Yimpa]

Quote

What is your self

It can be as simple as a cat or as complex as an alien. 

[Reciprocality]

The self will need to be filled, and will feel terrible when it is not filled, the self is healthy when it is a dependent being.

Dependent on x, independent of y.

[Reciprocality]

15 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

It can be as simple as a cat or as complex as an alien. 

@Yimpa is that right

[Yimpa]

22 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Yimpa is that right

I could also be wrong. I’m coming to acceptance of that “fact”!

[Reciprocality]

@Yimpa

26 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

I could also be wrong. I’m coming to acceptance of that “fact”!

You are coming to acceptance of something that can be wrong, do you do this often?

When I ask what a self is I do not intend to ask what forms it can take, instead I ask what is the same between all or most of those forms.

q: "what is a cup?"  ...  a: " a cup can be blue and it can be big!"

Edited March 1 by Reciprocality

[Yimpa]

@Reciprocality What I actually am used to doing often is needing reality to be a particular way. So thank you expanding with the cup example!