Reciprocality

Member
  • Content count

    590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Reciprocality

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,490 profile views
  1. I am not awake and almighty, but even I understand that this thread does not aid people in an awakened direction, but makes them more deeply committed to their feeling or thinking that they do. There is something weird about how many of you react towards what Leo is saying. the man is so almighty he will become your grandma if he is not already, and now he is everyone's grandma but also there are no grandma. Let me ask you, what is on the line? If not some conviction you hold that is itself far removed from direct experience? Are you gonna have a perpetuity guru or are you actually become your own man when the enlightenment have burst your heart at last? So far as I can tell you are here still precisely because you have attachment issues, by attributing Gura with a responsibility he admittedly is a little to glad to hold onto. It is pretty amazing if in the midst of the most potent existential awakening you find some conscious entity, I bet it would not matter much then if it contradicted the shit out of your teacher. I even bet you would find your prior self rather amusing.
  2. @Einsteinonacid Thanks for that one man, I almost have never laughed that hard by a meme. Just too good.
  3. @lxlichael Now you are just trolling me, I got that Peter tingle.
  4. @ZzzleepingBear Well I am glad you like it. I could be vague and open ended as is the norm, but then I have do deconstruct all the assumptions that entails, all the pompous meaningless questions. That takes effort, and pays small dividends, there is a thread in which me and some other guy argued back and forth 150 comments, or rather that I explained my every step indefinitely, though I enjoyed parts of it and it did teach me some lessons in rhetoric and possibly how to be vague at the right moment, though sacrificing meaning and even logic while at it, it did not expand my thinking much, in fact I got annoyed by the initial subject itself even though I were the one setting it's parameters. To be attention grabbing is a skillset I lack, if the chances approaches zero that I will learn something from some initial statement and that I instead have to preach which I actually hate doing, then there is nothing in it for me, and rarely even for others. I am at a point where I consider the very skillet of writing down precisely what one thinks or wonders about as more important than the curiosity itself, if not intelligence as well, I know how extreme that statement is, but I can not help it. Say you have person a and b, a is in the 5th percentile of curiosity and 95%tile of clarity, and b is opposite of that, after having spent a few too many hours reading statements on this forum, the former is option will be mine to my last day. You are not wrong, as much is evident. Edit: If this seems pedantic, dismissive etc, then I can happily whitewash myself and say that this forum is magnitudes beyond average in consciousness, obviously, so it has that going for it. Elevated consciousness and highfalutin going hand in hand.
  5. That blows my mind. edit: every, single, step, that is.
  6. @lxlichael Lol, should I change name to The Wise Erratic? No, how much misanthropy for instance, can be combined with wisdom?
  7. @Someone here The understanding may be "components" themselves of us, but are themselves never made of components. Understanding is not a calculation, even though calculations may aid us to its end. The parts themselves of our calculations, those are the understanding. (which means that understanding is made of finite resources, as in adding upon itself logoritmically and not linearily as pretty much everyone believes, there are an infinite amount of fantasies to be held, these accumulates upon themselves given some some initial understanding and more often than not drowns them. The most complex theorems of math are by analogy, only representations of some understanding which itself is not complex. I seem to find it amazing how the mind creates naturally this whole thing without conscious effort at presence, the understanding is for me the appreciation/representation of what is already done, could I one day show people of any culture, any class or predicament what they have always done and known subliminally, then I guess that connect to a higher aim, as you ask for. To represent the understanding is different from reducing it, instead of saying that the radiator,fan,gpu,cpu comprises the pc and substantiates it by the composition itself I would only find accidents, I could sit here for a week and find millions of accidents of the computer, the computer would be a different idea than when I begun zooming in, but this idea would itself be irreducible to the sum of all these components if given a new such week. It is literally mystical as fuck, that there is such a thing as understanding, I am at awe to no end. The components are always and will always be retrospectively combined in order for us to feel validated in our understanding, but the success-rate one may feel in doing this is inversely proportional to the significance of the understanding itself. So instead of reducing and equating I predicate things on other things, that is, the understanding of division predicates numbers, without dividing some identity in half there could be no distribution of the relation between the two halves on a third etc. "3" is literally possible if and only if the abstraction of say "rocks" are given you in, but not from, the experience of many, and then divided in half. Then there is the set of everything, rocks, trees, humans... This is a transcendental predicate, a priori, it is not a summation of all the sets, instead it is there WITH any sets. These halves are then every rock you ever experience (even those in the background, it is even because of this distribution that they can go unnoticed in the background), the duality is not between "you and the rock" but between the rock and its manifold. There is always more to something than its predicate, the understanding is whatever is more, you do not have to think about the predicate to understand, that is only a characteristic of retrospective combination. To connect to minimal cohesion giving the possibility of human endevours, that is a top value for me, but it has nothing to do with humans in particular, it has to do with any and all possible intelligent emergent forms of consciousness, so the value regards the connection to the necessity of existence.
  8. Erratically throwing away happiness from love, success, fame and wisdom even, in the pursuit of understanding. If happiness does not come as an accident to understanding, then I am at war with it, but only then.
  9. It is an oxymoron, it is like saying that there can be an opinion independent opinion. Not only is non-relative morals present only in fantasy, but the very hypothesis is paradoxical. Instead, the question is why "morals" are as they are, it is first here that any universals are given meaning, namely on what there is of some thought or language which makes it appear that people are in agreement. Or some universal truth concerning the reality as opposed to content of the hearts intentionality itself such as in Emotivism, or in relation to thought thereafter, cognitivism. If me and you and every other man in some known world would express agreement on every imaginable virtue, good act or deed, even that has no bearing concerning relative character of the values held. In arguing otherwise you would also have to say that you can look trough my eyes, or scratch my back with my hands alone. When someone speak of morals in a context different from its inherent relativity, they are not speaking about morals, and are unaware of how the mind have tricked them. They are changing the goalpost as they walk along, in one instance morals are normative as what is held such that some action may be taken, in another morals are categories or descriptions of this object of concern taken for the object itself. They are confused because their whole life they thought that there were such a thing as a synthetic agreement, you and me may both agree to "murder Putin" but this is a description of a moral sentiment not the actually described, you and me may both vote for some assassination or do the act itself, but it is totally under determined whether this represents the same sentiment, the actual value itself. There is absolutely no meaningful meta ethical "middle" between saying that morals are statements concerning logical necessity/natural validity, as a mere calculation on the one hand and on the other saying that morals express emotions. and are totally relative. Just like behaviorism is not psychology neither is a theory nor a sentence of moral essence.
  10. Would you be without directionality? Time is what you have when actuality is yet to be potential, to be what it can potentially become. That time is considered present is an accident of the emptiness of what is considered potential as inherent in whatever is actual. Presence is distributed (if we allow ourself an analogy) over "quanta" of time, due to the finitism of plural phenomenon, which means that presence is determined by various identities that inheres to each other, there is no "point" in time because presence is an indivisible manifold of finite elements trough perpetuity, we call this consciousness. A second analogy would be a ship the name of which remains despite the renewal of all its materials (given some minimal congruence), the identity of the reality of the ship DID require some materials, though the name only initially so. A ship is only "the" ship if it is the one initiated by the materials, rendering the last statement necessarily true. Potential is empty, acceleration empty, vector empty, direction empty, and requires to be filled. Thoughts are supposed to be of this character, meaningless on their own but of instrumental significance, everything is thus that without which a void would tear everything apart. Absolute cohesion, existence demanded to become or never to disappear. It could not be escaped and so we are literally inevitable, weird and peculiar as we are, yet as necessary as the atom, as light, as anything at all. It is this necessity which you may call "Now".
  11. Empirical magnitudes of say touch, or sight. These are like curves on a graph, mathematically. It is not unusual to consider time to be base if this graph, instead it is emergent of the vector of all in conjunction, but the graphs are only a representation and not the nature of the "object" described. Time is not distributed over what it is emergent of, therefore "proper time" is an illusion, yet the hypothesis has metaphysical significance, the negation of this hypothesis can for instance further the argument of solipsism. Your "past" is a substantial memory, provability of emergence thereof require those memories to also be split into and then out of, you cant do that so therefore the best you can do is a computation of the mere theory. If time feels to be slowing down given the absence of empirical magnitudes, then it is justified to believe that time is emergent in part of them. if calculations and thinking speeds up the sense of time in proportion to some base (which again, is not itself tme) then that further justifies the emergence of time upon the "vector". There is no infinite regress here because the properties of empirical magnitudes changing all the time, and that the only relevance is the memory like five second ago. We may even justify the argument that impermanence or change exists at all because the opposite would contradict the question of why, as without the question neither any answer. A universal now is a contradiction, whatever is universal can not be emergent.
  12. @Carl-Richard Statements, "x is y" has replaced "x is y if so and so", not primarily because of dogma, but often instead because of the opposite, that is; relativism. Disagreements arise also when everything is just a perspective, only now it is far harder to spot it when you do not even speak of the same thing. The antithetical nature of plurality of opinions that arise in say scientific communities grows into synthetic understanding, but here on this forum disagreements are not even antithetical to each other in relation to some objective standard of discourse, so it does not even become obvious what people are really thinking. It would aid us in a better direction to exclude the most practical threads from this conversation, this problem is and should be less prevalent in those. In trying to define words, though it is better than doing nothing, one assumes that the objective standard can be defined, understanding as I said is beyond definitions, and so one must establish a THEORY of sorts that is far beyond mere sum of words. I get that I am biased regarding the importance of theories, but that does not change the frequency of platitudes, assumptions, mere association, categorization and memorization that occur in this forum, none of these are bad on their own, I even engage in several of those in this very paragraph. I would also maintain that everything is consciousness, but I would be suspicious to if that means anything at all, expose hypothetical exceptions to it, question both if there really is any difference between the actual perceptions on a day to day basis between for instance idealists and physicalists and the opposite: whether there actually is much convergence between the meaning of the previous statement to you and to me at all, this invites theorization far deeper than the blanket statement in italic itself.
  13. Many people in here, well most people in general anyway are confused about the difference between a category and a concept. They are happy to say that something is such and such, to consider something in general, but this though it is a mental process is not conceptual for the simple reason that you are not thinking in the act itself, instead you are performing what is equivalent of memorization. You are merely experiencing the minimal association two things have to each other and giving them a name. You presume to be thinking when instead you put things beside each other, and accept naively that here is where they belong. Then you engage in some conversation presuming to actually learn something new when instead you have just left every category back from where you found it, and at best arbitrarily given it an obscure new element. The reason your head can be controlled like this is because of.. feelings, these guide your categories, these makes you presume to understand what you talk about just because you take it in your own power to put some element into some set. The easiest way, I have found, to be able to check whether categories points to an underlying understanding of something substantial, is to find whether you need or do not need to apply the category itself in some conversation in which the opponent disagrees with its applicability to reality/evidence/content of discussion. If you think that you can define the understanding then you are blind, for nothing is understood which comprises the elements which retrospectively is associated with it, for anyone engaged in substantial meaningful dialogue, and are not merely interested in stories or visions, must actually synthesize information they think they knew ANEW and in new ways. That is, the very structure of the manifold of memories should change, requiring no addition to it. I consider exposition as opposed to definition, to be what you do when instead of remembering something, you think something, in a continual effort of exposing the world and yourself of its peculiarities are you justified in considering the word you use to denote it meaningful and worthy a definition. To be concrete, I will take the example of consciousness (a little ironic, ill admit it), it is established discourse in here that everything of reality is "consciousness" but here is maintained minimal effort at making it clear which of the 30 theories on consciousness (and their antitheses) the understanding of consciousness is based on, and so subject a and b may feel great in their mutual disjunctive relation to culture at large, forming a category of the relationship, have not therefore any mutual understanding at all. What lurks wound the corner is a total incapacity to consider or pinpoint, such as based on the example above, the difference between peoples actual experience of living in the world, as well as what they are actually pointing towards.