Reciprocality

just listen

I can not help it, there are two ways of going about my initial statement in the thread (and therewith the seed to the rest), either you believe that I were presupposing the existence of the separation I conceded to exist only in imagination (this perspective would be very popular in the general actualised community) or you respond affirmatively to my last question posed above about the eternity of separations (stating it as an ontological primitive). This ontological primitive would exist prior to your imagination, your imagination would only be an instance of the rule. The only way such an eternity could be true is if I am separate from others within it, and the only way it could be false is if I or also a limited number of others are the only existing things. Culture is that which conceals this eternity from you, as it conceals that you are a part of that eternity. But why is it that it is able to do so? I believe the answer to this is that you need your sense of self, and it gives that to you by saying that you are a part of something different than the eternity of separations. Your true identity is concealed because it feels absolutely horrible to lose yourself. This community is no different than any other in this regard, it gives you the sense of self you need.

When we discover that such things are necessary logically we are bound to ask whether they is metaphysically necessary too. My last question then is this: is imagination or separation a metaphysical necessity, is separation something which will happen eternally?

My answer to my question posed in the post is that imagination and separation is identical such that not only do you have the separation of reality and perspective in your imagination but an alternative to this is impossible. Edit: if the alternative is impossible then the imagination of the separation between perspective and reality is necessary.

So it turns out that replicant did not mean what I thought it did, what I mean is "duplicate" functioning as a "replacement".

If I try to uncover that about the totality of my existence which is purely perspectival I find instead that my perspectives and the things that I have perspectives on are inseparable. They can in other words only appear separated in my imaginations, and that this is possible implies that in my imaginations I conceive versions of "perspective" and "reality" that are false replicants. Why would I think that the false replicants were not false before and during the attempt to uncover the purely perspectival?

@Bobby_2021 Historical wisdom has given us a neat word for what we are talking about, the word is "judgement", "understanding" implies correctness, you have not understood that which you are incorrect about while a judgement refers to your relation with that which you may or may not have understood. You make a good point about judgements holding information together in memory, it could easily lead to a conversation about the nature of the self and spontaneity, as these four categories ties neatly together and changes in how they operate together over time especially in developing years.

I have been writing in essays in aphoristic style to myself since January 2020, my propensity to recall particular situations from my past days and weeks is not even a tenth of what it were prior to that. At times this has been frustrating and emotionally draining, but I suspect more and more that it is a function of already given limited resources that were shifted into new tasks. If you engage a nine year old in discussion you may pick up on their propensity to recall rapidly situations from their past week, you may remember being this way yourself, they simply do not have a richly developed interconnected structure of judgements available to them, instead they have the necessary precursor for it, would it be contrived to hypothesise that when the structure of judgements are so rich that the written word wills itself out of you perpetually that the spontaneous recall of the particular things to which those judgements applies have no longer the same use case? That this impairment of our memory happens even with the very phrasing of those words you use to express those judgements? Another angle to the issue is the difference between writing things down immediately after having conceived of them and thinking them through in your head (when this is possible) before writing them down, this difference could be more relevant to the thread, from experience I have found that the insight comes back to me more often and with a higher intensity when I do this.

How does it work that when you are not well making vague assertions about "life itself" being this or that way helps you? We suffer because something is wrong with our body, our self-identity, mind or situation in general or because we are not able to figure out what is wrong in the first place or because we do not have discipline enough to enact the solution. I have learned discipline and integrity, I do not fool myself into thinking that I love myself or love anything if my actions do not tell that story. It is not a vague idea of life in general but instead my past actions that tells me what suffering is.

To the extent we say that an object is the purpose we associate with it is the extent to which you go beyond its identity, you can not be naive in your assertion that a rock exists independent of your perspective, you can only be naive in thinking that its purposes pertains to its independency. This is not to say that a rock could exist independent of beings who have perspectives.

@Carl-Richard I appreciate the productive engagement! Naive realism can not be decoupled from a perspective that asserts its to be false, in my line of thinking the "subjective way of life" which you fairly accurately interpreted as naive realism is necessarily absurd, or self-contradictory. We are probably talking about the same behaviour or tendency, but my criticism of this tendency should be falsifiable, while the critiques of naive realism I am aware of either introduces no alternative by skeptical doubt (Descartes) and inference fallacies (Hume), introduces ridiculous concept-instincts (Kants Categories and a priorities), are unfalsifiable by beginning from definitions or concepts (Bertrand Russel and modern philosophy in general) or reintroduces the same problem in new clothing by rejecting reality altogether (George Berkley). I have listened to a lot of stuff coming from the d-man myself over the years and can confirm that he is very meta-cognisant of the difference between his beliefs and the world itself, the reason he has come across this way is that he relies on first principles and logic. But I have no doubt that he too falls into the category of "living subjectively", if for instance I were to ask Destiny what the life itself is that he wishes political power to benefit he would likely have no way to do depict it yet be entirely certain that there is an "it" there to depict in the first place and declare thereby defeat, in which case he actually would think that his own concept of life is substantial or predicable and not a predicate. (to make a ridiculously silly way to capture this problem concretely imagine what a human looks like to a rock, it certainly would not be life-like) We may for simplicity's sake say that there are degrees of naiveté of ones reality-awareness, where at the peak we have the person who is able to confirm his own opinions of others by derogatory speech and on the other end (or least severe) the belief that reality itself can be identified by our conception of it. What I am saying here are just assertions, but when it gets to actually justify these assertions (or interpreting them correctly) we get into an extremely heavy conceptual topic, that is the nature of the game, and I apparently do not know how to make it accessible despite having tried for hundreds of hours in various media, it is the nature of the game. If i were challenged to argue it here Id hint at it involving what some places goes by the name holism, some places rationalism or even monism, or to appeal overly to the audience: self reference. I am probably a bit Nietzscheian when it comes to this topic, everyone is correct about reality because reality literally becomes through our perspectives, and this continues to be the case even when we are aware of it. Yet, now diverging from the German, there must be something which precedes the reality that our minds create, due to which we can see and think and about which, now converging with Kant, we could never know anything. To not create contradictions I need to make further distinctions, unfortunately making thereby what were intended as a short and concise response tangential and overly complex, it is not that everyone are correct about verifiable reality, but that reality is in the mind of the agent a product of the item's non-verified state yet the naive agent thinks ingeniously that reality awaits him to verify it. Ill definitely write some of this in Norwegian if the english did not suffice, if my paragraphs do not appear to cohere then kindly reply to those that do, now to the conclusive remarks. Take a random person of the street, they would be correct about nearly every aspect of existence, because realism is correct about these things (a rock is a rock because the whole is contained in the part through objective identification, the personal will can not affect this process), it only appears naive to fellers who weirdly begun to reduce memory to logic (and begun to expect that reality should conform to it in every respect) when the reduction goes the other way around, nothing is logical except through reference to our many forms of memories. A dog and a man experience the same rock, because that part of the mind which identifies things is decoupled from the part of the mind which contextualises it, I did not intend for this to get into the Mcgilchrist split brain hypothesis territory but looky here.

@Carl-Richard The typical meaning of living subjectively could be exemplified by a person living in the modern western world who has no explanation of the needs for government, someone who do not distinguish between their own unconfirmed beliefs and reality or someone who secures their own beliefs about someone by calling them names (you have probably been witness to the last one many times). I mean something more general, something that people who fit into the opposites of the above examples can be subject to as well. My assertion is that you live subjectively even when the world-concept you possess on an ongoing basis (as a background to whatever you are engaging with at that moment) is thought to be the world itself or resemble it very closely, I find this to be very frequent, we may both do it right now without being aware.

@universe Thank you, and weirdly it may be that simple. For years on end my body would react against my obsessive thinking, by for instance making me want to go to the toilet even if I already went there, I started noticing these impulses happening so often that I could begin to predict it as soon as my mind got into a new line of thought, it implied to me that my body were not in agreement with this much energy spent solving problems yet I kept going and going until it impacted my mental health negatively and could no longer think sufficiently fast etc. If I would have continued to force it and continue caring very little about my self the depression would have hit far harder. So in periods I did take your advice universe and will try to do it even more than mere minimum going forward.

Right now I have an idea of that which goes on outside of the house I am sitting in, almost everything in this idea is inferred. Most people undoubtedly think that their equivalent idea is the literal world itself (you probably think so too, some of you even make it a spiritual achievement to think so) and have thereby access to a purely subjective way of life. I do not know what to do, I can not decide whether to continue to infer the behaviour of reality based on experiences or begin to live life with myself in focus. You may say that these two are not mutually exclusive but that will be a statement that requires investigation. The emotion of minimum enjoyment falls outside of the scope above since one could live as archaically, immaturely, egoically and personally as possible as well as living as objectively and sagely as possible without some minimum of enjoyment caused by unification with parts of our past such as through perception changing thereby.