Reciprocality

@El Zapato But how do we get mulitmillion nations to not be governed by narratives, and if there are no alternative to narratives then mustn't there something underlying narratives that is the true root to the problem of which the narratives are mere symptoms?

Ive been trying to date several iqs and we just aint iquing at all

I do think there is something going the last couple of years but I haven't travelled the world so I cant say its global, and it could very well be that the change of ones own perspective on things makes one realise that the heightened sense of awareness and empathy were out there all along. I actually think that is the toughest part of the enlightenment journey, to realise that pre-enlightenment you lived in a false narrative of the world and to then deal with the backlash of you yourself having been the main problem all along not everyone else is unbearable. Do you really know that most other people aren't already enlightened in all sorts of ways, what is the process by which you determine so? Would you really have the tools to just know that they do not possess mental states that does not show under the situational context in which you observe them, how often do you meet new people 1on1 to even set the stage for that possibility?

It may not seem like it at first glance but I would argue that the above is actually sufficient for interpreting why there is an epistemic bubble as you put it, if the opinions of the minority were to be effective and the relevant country had something of a democracy then the effect described above of controlling the majority narrative would be a necessity, in which case the appeal to a lower common denominator (for whom judgements concerning personal and vividly remembered novel information were not readily passed) would take a fairly homogenous form.

@Hardkill 1. Because judgements or opinions makes reality orderly, 2. because we remember new information (certainly so far as it connects to our personal identity) with higher intensity than old information, 3. because novel information is chaotic in relation to the rest of our knowledge without a judgement or opinion about that information and lastly 4. because our innate nature is to reduce chaos. Apply the general principles above to the subject of the post "why do the perspectives of a minority of people dominate the public discourse that concerns the majority of people?". The judgements of the minority of people about why novel things are the way they are and what should be done about it reduces the chaotic/neurotic relation it has to people to whom it a. were intensely remembered and b. relates personally and c. who has not thought about it nearly as much as the minority.

@Asia P Its very hard to say without you answering some questions. Are you more than 20 years old? Does the particular case again and again actually inform you of the nature of whole world as well as your own hidden intensions without the slightest doubt to the contrary? Do you thereby connect at all times the appearance of someone with a likely cause for why it is needed and find that this judgement is largely accurate? Do you actually favour truth over happiness even when the former undermines the latter? Are quiet moments alone with your thoughts actually the most valuable moments in your life by a wide magnitude? If the answer to all these are "yes" then you get into the territory at which university and people in general can be even more harmful to your development than not going to university would be to those who would answer "no" to these questions. However, expect immense tradeoffs either way that you wont even be close to imagine beforehand and probably not even afterwards. Independent thinking has the potential to be weirdly superior to the alternative when by the strike of chance it is somehow allowed for, all things that are understood must stand entirely on its own feet as blank point distinct from all others and that distinct point must be a direct path to its own explanation, extension and implication. The desire to achieve something is at every moment antagonistic to the tendency of the mind to think without roundabout paths, for the same reason that all composite identities are necessarily teleological.

It isn't that the beginning was, the beginning is, there is no real division between the beginning and now, and that beginning and you are one and the same on a substantial level, scientists would agree since experiment indicates that though everything changes the apparent substance does not spontaneously arise at any given moment but instead is a later variation of itself. How does everything work? When analysed it works by necessity, since it works by the continuum, and if it did not work by the continuum it would work by spontaneity and literally be random in every way (random upon analysis from within a system built on that spontaneity, but never "random in itself") But the continuity disrupts when we stop analysing, and yet we ask how does everything work independently of our analysis? Something astounding happens when we investigate the origins of our concepts, we find that quantum indeterminacy/randomness as well as curved space-time is expected given the analytical and non-synthetical nature of the concepts of space/time/causality/necessity/simplicity/homogeneity etc, since there is no reason to expect that substances independent of our mind should be governed by concepts we abstract from experiences that are only possible in our mind. Its wild, please read the critique of Pure Reason by Kant.

@1337 Also, you are not supposed to understand math, you are supposed to distinctly identify that mathematical operations in fact work just like you are able to identify all sorts of things merely via their mutual presence in the same space and time. If you are able to understand maths before you are able to ascertain that it works you literally cant be taught the rules that others rely on reach correct conclusions, it would be like excepting a monk to be taught heuristics for cognitive empathy. The mind simply can not fool itself into experiencing novelty where there is none, our whole organism is just an input/output system of the foolproof tendency to intensely fixate on and remember only things it does not already know thus inducing a clearer concept of "the world". If you comprehend the general while everyone else memorises the particular but are forced to do as the others you will experience the same stimuli in your mind as you would if you were asked to repeatedly call an object by its name. All this is an incomplete picture until you introduce the tendency for self-identity, as only in the enjoyment of self-love do people actually get stimulated merely by what they already know, though only under the conditions that others are present since here the knowledge becomes a implication of who one is as opposed to just being what it is.

@1337 Im sorry that I did not write the following any better, this is simply how I think about it and I cant change it. Certain things are either is 0 dimensional or dimensional. A variable is insufficiently particular dimensional unit, only 0 dimensional points are invariant or unitarily particular irrespective of further context. All things with dimension instantiate the concept of a variable if the thing gets projected into a coordinate, a triangle is a composite of 1 dimensional lines therefore a triangle is a variable relative to a metric. Imagine that you walk at the same speed on a path from a to b and there are several cameras that focus on you while you walk that path, can you visualise why each camera must by necessity change the rate at which it rotates if it successfully has you in focus? Of course. Do you see how the square in the illustration above slows down the closer it gets to the surface of the circle? It is for the inverse reason that the cameras in the example above did (the relation of the constant and the variable is reversed, in the illustration above it is the rotation that is constant), this inversion is a feature not a problem because it means that when it comes to expressing it in terms of symbols you can simply change x/y to y/x. How could the movement of that square be anything but half of what it would have been if instead of being governed by a shape that extends equally horizontally and vertically it were governed by a shape that extended infinitely less vertically thus half in total? The most general principle of geometry, trigenometry, algebra and all of math is often not distinctly recognised, it is that everything is relative to everything else, that it is this relativity we are expressing by means of ratios (percentages/division/multiplication) and that this simply follows from how all inputs in a syntactical system whether it is a coordinate or algebraic rules followed from left to right is a totality and that for change in one element of the input to not accompany an equal change in the others one must always input something more than the totality.

You distinguish consciousness in two different contexts and words are not typically made for that kind of task, what is for instance both opposed to elevated and tricky or integrated and low? Luckily there is some inherent similarity between the two things that are distinct from consciousness, that is: their causal continuity, "death" or most precisely "non-positivity". When we observe a fly crashing with the window we immediately notice about it something different from the dust particles that flies around it, and we call that distinct characteristic spontaneity. When we reflect on our own existence we find a continuous absence and presence of motive or will followed by a sense of identity but we never find a preceding reason for the motive or the will just like how we did not find any preceding reason for the movement of the fly we were observing. We connect the behaviour of the fly and our own motive before we even get to think twice about it because we can not fail to know that they are opposed to the necessitated effects (causal continuums) that exists outside them, verify it yourself.

It is often the case that the more something resists change the more it prone to change other things and the more prone something is to change the less it can change other things This can be observed in a million different situations, humans have for thousands of years observed this not only in the relation between physical forces but also in their own and others psychological behaviour and one of the consequences are the concepts of femininity and masculinity we carry with us today. That masculine energy we immediately notice in men is their resistance to change via the rigidity in their situational judgement that gives rise to their tendency to independently assert themself into the environment. The feminine energy is equally immediately noticeable in most women, there is here a tendency to withhold situational judgements due to a higher sense of subtlety and more distinct ideation of socially acceptable behaviour thus lesser need to assert themself independently. @Javfly33 It is hard to understand our own instincts but it could be worth the trouble and especially so if it can impact major decisions in life like pursuing enlightenment or not, so ill ask you what is the mechanism whereby you feel good in the presence of someone with the feminine characteristics I outlined above? Can it be a feeling of a form of validation about your tendency of asserting your perspectives and judgements that only someone with those feminine characteristics could provide you and ultimately a sense of your own identity that only comes forth under those feminine conditions?

So satire then?

@Husseinisdoingfine If you both have 1. a higher-order perspective thus judgement on the situations you are in and 2. a highly developed conscience for validity or truth and 3. your perspective on things are substantially different from your peers in measurable ways then how could you not be more occupied with testing the validity of your perspectives upon perception of relevant situations than distinctly identifying symbolic methods of expressing rules, structures and principles, aren't peers the very substance of your sociological interest?

Have you identified precisely why you failed the calculus course? You say that you do poorly on calculations, there can be several reasons for this and if your mind naturally thinks holistically it is more prone to gain insight into things without relying on step-by-step computations and simply develop syntactical immunity (failing to think a thing indirectly via a symbol or system that is not that thing). When it comes to oscilating between remembering and failing to remember what you studied the day before this is very likely due to other things occupying your mind subconsciously, which I would imagine being a far more prevalent problem for people who have the kind of meta-cognisant and antagonistic perspective on how society operates that people on actualised have. It is very possible that the life-situation you are in and the ongoing search for the implication or deeper meaning of things you perceive makes remembering indirect systems, symbols and structures nearly impossible, simply because your mind subconsciously direct your attention to the former kind of thing due to how much more truth and growth it knows rests inside it than the latter.

@Buck Edwards Appreciate the Philosophical references! And it is hard not to get overexcited when someone references Kants works. There does not need to be a transcendental unity of apperception, for one because possibility itself is sufficiently accounted for by investigation into its meaning (there is no reason why that which is possible should be prior to what is actual) and secondly because of Kants own argument against transcendent beings posited to exist merely via a form of induction whether these be God, nothingness, randomness, substance, soul or possibility etc. In better terms: the a priory status of Kants Categories and the derivability of the concept of those categories from mere sensory stimuli (which I believe I can argue for) makes the status of those concepts (in so far as they are to be employed as a priori principles in arguments) transcendent and metaphysical, at which point knowledge of them becomes subject to the same scrutiny under which he himself placed the concepts of God, Substance and Soul via a variation of the problem of induction or the problem of synthetic a priori judgements.