Reciprocality

Take a good peak at half the opinions on this forum, should sober you up alright, you know the kind of sober you get from jump scares in horror movies.

you have to love it

You develop good taste and find that only two percent of those you typically watch are worthy your time anyway, and that unless they engage that in you which require your conscious efforts it is evident of your weakness and that as a maxim you suppose yourself strong. You develop your negative judgments (note they are not in want of material on the site you reference) and feel into how ridiculously limited your time is (and should be) as this pile of tissue, perhaps then you will not need the bandages presented elsewhere in this thread, but lets admit it, what are the chances? So I vote for the path to least resistance, find the plugin for you" : )

@Inliytened1 No if non-duality is real then actuality is a necessity, and of want neither of god nor its power to create itself. If reality is non-dual then god as inevitably conceptual in communication is void of all meaning that is not also present without that concept, If non duality is real than our descriptions of a god owed a definition is false, if god is owed no definition that is not equal in truth value its referent then the claim "it has to create itself" is vacuous, empty, meaningless, absurd, silly, ambiguous and corrupted.

@DefinitelyNotARobot Perspectives as you correctly imply are very different from the purity in understanding, for this is what all perspectives are made of whether cohesively or not. I get that you want to gather many perspectives on how to learn efficiently so that you may find the gold nuggets here and there, this is a sensible approach in the sense that it is precisely such an approach that may bring some success out of a tenfold possible ones that would bring very little, but I must maintain that so far as effective learning is concerned in the very general (the one you are after) nothing can progress you further than an analysis of the very condition itself for learning, something the very opposite of what your approach may lead to very fast, hoarding information. Another way to say it is that there are only so many platonic forms, you can reach them either by looking directly for them in the very foundation of your being or by fussy accident in gathering a bunch of perspectives (though admittedly less accidental in the particular kinds of perspectives you look for), either way it will be in those forms and those only that you can possibly get 'ahead' in effective learning, for as mentioned it is precisely in those the many possible subjects you wish to learn are coded either in itself from the get go (a) or as it ultimately relates to your understanding of it when it is learned (b). It is this latter category (b) which seems the most speculative as an assertion, but where the biggest benefits may be reaped, for under the conditions of multiperspectivism there are learned many such forms that remains subconscious but which my approach would help surface into the conscious. Schematicism and classification is to the latter what a priori abstract objects, logic, geometry etc. are to the former, I sense that what you are insisting on is being efficient at remembering the very things you have already understood, if not then again, the conditions for your very perception of the world around you is not association on top of association, induction, or itself empirical, but instead the very ideas you have about it at their most distinct, for me it became easier and faster to learn new things when I could say "i did not quite get it but at least it has to conform to this and this rule and not be conjoined in the negation of this and this", I assume you and most people to not be too different.

For that which is possible there can not be a possible state giving rise to it, yet for anything actual to at all be given it must be also such a thing of the power precisely to make something else possible, this then which is possible is confined to and never itself beyond what is at any state actual, that there are anything at all is thereby a dance of the will in an interplay with the things not initiated in possibility by means of it but given life from it. What is ultimately possible is therefore all things, the reason we are given any particular such light is neither here nor there, for any sufficient reasons are self evident each, and in proof thus found in all directions. To that which is possible only actual states can give rise, and in all actual states possible ones are come actual in the force of will, but owing to some force Y there are the possible in the actual itself, this Y must have no inverse for otherwise nothingness as a then condition for infinite will would be necessary, but such can not be the case for then what is actual now as the condition for what is possible in itself would be subject to doubt, as nothing else than doubt suffices in the face of things which could possibly have been otherwise, such things then are taken both as possible and actual with no regard for bare minimums of cohesion. The problem arises when the will is confused for the means of thinking its representation, as predicating the past of that which is only present in our aid for making actual what in the actual is potential. The freedom of the will, though minuscule in its own right, would never be so powerless and out of order to be contained in that by means of which it gives rise to new moments (such as memories), instead it must be in their eternal proximity. We are then justified in saying that for the little control we have -- nothing carries over into the past but all is with us towards all futures. That which is possible f in what is actual T (now) may very well itself be necessarily actual trough inference; in a prior universal chain of events yet determined as such as the actuality F of that possibility f long after T. In fact, no world failing to follow this rule of dual actuality to possibility is even imaginable (imagination as the outer limitation for all possible worlds), and such a world would thus be impossible. Something which is possible can not be the condition for the possibility of something else, the will must be the only thing preventing what is possible from actuality The dual actuality to any potential are related to those potentials by means of either a-p in force Y or p-a in will, all of which are totally encompassed by a law of causality, which itself takes the form either in 1. magnitudes of substances / magnitude as duration in time (part to part) or 2. emergence (community of parts in a (seeming) immediate and definite whole), both of which constitutes a finitude of objects given us as patterns in what I deem constant reality as =1. in addition to paragraph 1: What is actual can never itself be the singular condition for something else that is actual, due to which temporality crossing (visiting) the constants in reality (substances) as that necessary addition makes determinate those substances and ultimately the supreme necessity of not only something as opposed to nothing, but also of the very something in particular. We may expect that which is equal to 1 in the combined whole of the world of substances to fail our instruments are their smallest, not merely by engineering but also by our own intellectual upper bound, as evident already reminder of need of edit

My thoughts are like fluids, which is how they are so hard to predict the outcome of and justify fully, yet so well adapted to fill out empty surfaces and spaces. I have changed dramatically to counterbalance that, I have put shackles on the mind to hold objects with its hands, and it were good I did.

Learning about learning is not an acquisition of anything, instead it is the surfacing of platonic forms that were always necessary for everything you ever "acquired" previously. It is to dive deep into a realm of that without which the world could not be as it already appears, it is intelligence itself and the anticipation of what may be possible by this meta-cognition, concrete imagination. Learning is not a matter of remembering and combining, but in all temporal states something new and fresh, for this reason it would easily be a poor investment to read the musings of other people to expect as a result that by which such readings could initially take form, if you really want to learn "how to learn" you must endeavor in total self-sufficient thought, as I have named the "walk of the mind" for much like a child still crabbing around are people everywhere still in that state at 30 what regards their intellect, smart or otherwise. To get up on both legs is essential, I would choose staring the horror in the face, that of not even walking.

There is something about the rain, how it lives so very well also at our deadest. There is something about the soul, how it carries us out into any such fluid. There is something about steps, how each of such multiplies into any presence and how tomorrow forms in that presence as its ultimate end, there is something in the rain. A becoming into itself, an emergence for its own end trough accidents of its substance. Elements in their reduction as emergent from a form they are without, empty. Elements as accidents not in what they represent, neither in how they appear, but in how as appearance they are given in reason, they are forms given us trough our reason, but not as such forms the condition for that in which reason takes hold, mind. Otherwise we would as suggested elsewhere, explode into a hot soup. Elements as essential representations of the thing in itself, but accidental of it in how they are combined together to fit into our desires. Elements as analogies in combinations, as necessary on their own, metaphysics as the maintenance of their compound. Metaphysics proper speaks not in the positive, but acknowledges merely how for being there is required that nothing is taken away from it, that in certain neutrality nothing more must be said than 'I wish me some music while in the storm I carry on', to not die of apathy in the face of insignificance as the ultimate realization not of the purity of awareness which has nowhere to turn, but as our self's certain annihilation. Our, mine certain annihilation from the manifold of temporal variation, the soul coming to rain. Never completely to return in figure yet never therefore totally absent in form.

You can triangulate some sense of your behavior by testing for all sorts of things, including Asperger, but it makes little sense to say that you are a statistical representation. You can not have Asperger unless you are Asperger, therefore as in line with the above it is absurd to predicate Asperger of you, though there surely are instances of people where it would be more absurd. This does not help you with how to understand the diagnosis itself, as neither were it supposed to, it is meant for you to consider yourself as though you are Asperger, but not literally so. If having is not being then having means little to nothing. There is a triviality of the classification itself which admittedly has no bearing on the importance of considering yourself antithetically and synthetically in relation to the idea of the diagnosis and the many symptoms under it, it is not merely a quantitative matter of degrees that makes for the triviality aforementioned but a paradigmatic matter of which ideal diagnosis could be by statistical means best predicated of you that is far from real today, and that even this ideal would not as a statistics essentialize you but merely be better as a means for making sense of how you behave. The system is simplified the way it is for good reasons that has to to with scarcity, it would be like a sin to reduce ones own comprehension of oneself to that which makes the bear minimum run its wheels, I do not suggest that you have done so in particular, only that it appears a lot in general.

When I discovered that everything in science is a bunch of stuff considered as 1 divided by x (as meaning every perception having in it the possibility for finding something which stands in some perfect proportion to something as potentiated by a different perception) then I also understood that everything computational and thought about in science is a bunch of stuff as accidental instantiations of something which is beyond all of these, that math is just that, a rational system which comprises the variables you apply in the division of some initial input, which itself is a discovery of the condition required for it initially appearing in us. That we are ourself the condition for all possible systems one may venture into, come across, that most of the work one would do thereafter is a justification of how it could initially appear trough us in the beginning, except this is rarely admitted. That this which is beyond our deliberate computations of it is also predicated on ourself as the condition for such computations is where you are left at awe. We are thought science, thinking, judging the way we are thought counting, that around us and inside us there are a bunch of stuff laying around that we can put under scrutiny and that somehow by these peculiar formulas and methods they just happen to go neatly together, this is insanity. As though our counting these things justifies their being closed of such to possibly be subject for quantification. We are thought it as a story, or as a joke, instead everything in this world, as in what it means for there to possibly be a world at all, is a rational system the paradoxes of which are a function of the finitude of the requirement for consciousness to distribute over it. For the metaphors in our perceptions to asymmetrically go together when the empirical sensation is cancelled from our thinking of that world, to be rational requires us to avoid emptying our metaphors/concepts for their corresponding perception, unless by that procedure a possible experience were merely anticipated and not also tried justified. I kept it short and simple, with no high hopes of it going home anywhere, but on the off chance it does I feel justified posting it here, if you care about any of it feel free to pm me if you like.

Reality can not be real except in an infinite regression, instead it is up to us to judge if something is owed a pattern beyond the place it is found (what others call objective), this entity being something that one can bring back (or find) throughout time, or simply being beyond any very particular timeframe is what most people actually mean what they speak of whether something is real, though they do not therefore need to understand that this is what they actually mean. Our everyday perceptions often have these characteristics, and are therefore necessarily real in so far as we have them, in the sense that we actually mean it when we consider it possible for something to be real. It is an enormously absurd undertaking to then consider what you yourself are looking for to be gone when you are staring at it. Are the things we see real beyond us seeing them? Yes, that is what it means if you can independent of any particular time affirm its reality again and again, is it real when we see them, yes so far as they belong to the pattern which is independent of them yet applicable to them alone. This does not imply that we should know what this domain is like in which it is beyond us, instead it implies the opposite, our limitations. What is curious is that the empirical itself is not the real in our perceptions (for then you would need an infinitely vast knowledge of independent representations of such things), instead certain empirical sensations (say a million shades of purple) will a priori class into a given reality so that you can experience it and judge whether that means it is indeed real as you of course should as testament to your sanity. Seeing is a very ambiguous notion, for it speaks both of the empirical magnitudes of color and light, but also of the things we think of as given us in combination with these very colors and lights constituting perceptions, we may have a perception of a whale under our bed but that will not mean it will actually reappear as a pattern under it when we look there again, nor will it mean that what truly constitutes a whale in the scientific terms will reappear if indeed the very general notion of whale did do so. You may consider everything real, but that does not change the very difference between a pattern and a coincidence, you coinciding with a given perception of a whale does not constitute the pattern of whales, the pattern owed the typical linguistic notion of reality. So my question to you would be from where does the insistence on calling everything real take roots if every substantial difference remains regardless of what you call it? Edit: As to reality being real as infinite regression, it is regressive because it would be an empty computation, it would be like insisting on saying hellohellohellohihihello when all you actually tried to do is greet someone. IT would be a malfunction, an error of or insistence on non-meaning. Something must be real, for otherwise you could never have even questioned it, so then the question is what it is, this which is real can not be behind what is required for you to question it by that very logic, so then it must be our perceptions, the idea that our perceptions must be independent of us AS a physical thing is the place everyone's mind got trapped somehow, the physical is an assumption we bring over into the precise domain which rendered such things as the physical outside it by being (the domain that is) independent of us.

@MarkKol Being human and stupid is almost an oxymoron, it is actually because of you not understanding how you and others are different that it is absurd to compare yourself to them, you will not be able to understand this, nobody are, therefore do not compare yourself to "them". Instead, try looking around you, how many patterns do you see? If something repeats itself in space or time then it is a pattern, it is impossible for you to have written this text above and not see more such patterns than you can compute, intelligence is magnitudes beyond computation, everyone who ever did something important used their spare time computing the patterns they saw, if they were self obsessed about how hard this task were they would never be able to contribute so monstrously as they did. You are simply not that important, but the patterns you stand the chance of seeing are immortal, eternal or absolute, the deeper you see them the more original you will become in relation to them, if you care about being smarter then you have to take the unintuitive leap of faith and stop including the "you" in that equation.

If you understand holonism then the codependency of points and straight lines, second-dimensionality and triangles etc should really just be application of that understanding, making meaningful axioms unprovably true and therefore not "assumed" axioms. Which is another way to say that any particular system is not contained in but instead projected by an absolute system. Containment is inherently paradoxical, time is the opposite of containment, time can be referenced because of the disjunction between the very metaphors that renders it, these disjunctions are in a naive and irreducible proximity to each other held in short term memory. Most logicians would find my understanding of axioms circular, but they are radically oblivious to how they have to first assume AWAY the straight line from its inherent points, they do this because of the accidental nature trough which they may be given points and straight lines in conjunction. My whole philosophy is the opposite, there are platonic forms/substances that are perfect in a world we do not understand very well, we are mere instruments of it, if you triangulate many things by walking trough "time" then you should get a "glimpse" of them, you do not infer from apples their shape, you impose blindly their shape on the canvas of colors and light. In fact there very being such a thing as proofs proves there being unprovable truths (by disjunction), for otherwise nothing could be in conjunction to something else and there would literally only be super symmetry of proofs in every possible direction, no identity anywhere. That is, proofs are computational accidents to the proven object, some axioms (without even taking a look at any single one of them) must therefore necessarily be true and not assumed. In conclusion, and I am (a little) sorry for being too eager in your thread, the asymmetric world of mere information (pure empirical sensation) and the perfect world of forms are each others contingent being, precisely like (a. proofs, b. computation and c. accidents) inheres to (a. true axioms, b. the computed and c. substances), there would be nothing of the latter group without the impermanence of the former as there would be nothing of the former group without the constance of the latter, there literally is no constance of the latter except for in relation to the impermanence of the former, you would be left with nothing without the relation. An analogy here (to the relation itself) is that of physical emergence, or emergent causation, there is literally nothing more "contained" in a system a-z than a bunch of symbols, yet emergent of them there is more than their summation (alphabet), and it is computationally irreducible that it is so, which is why you are either thinking of the symbol or the alphabet but never actually both, that this is possible is remarkable.

Instead of considering logic to be a bunch of steps to follow, instructions to be algorithmic-ally applied, I would instead ask what is the given totality of interest/object of concern in a 'singular' moment and what attributes does it hold, when have you exhausted its elements and when have you not? Logic is not something we develop, logic is something trough which the world is given us, what we can develop is a meta cognition of how this is so such that we have good tools not to reduce it to logic. (this may sound most peculiar, is it not already reduced to logic if I claim that it (the world) is already given us by means of logic? nope. This has to do with completeness, for only in saying that I have the complete (or x->complete) set of logical rules for the way the world is given me can I be faulty in saying that it is so, and only in exemplifying a logical condition for which the world is not given me can I reduce it to it.) Logic is prior to conscious calculation, it is because of the inherence of logic to consciousness (as you know it) that it is possible to calculate at all, I would begin asking a bunch of questions like "windows are on every house I've seen, what essentializes windows such that I did not take them for something else, and what are their accidents, that is, what does window have that they do not need to have to be recognized as windows?" The essence of windows can then be applied in a statement-structure such that "every window is of glass" or accident "a window can be of glass but does not have to", formal logic is the application of the universality of the structure of these statements (x can be of Y but not always), logic "includes" also the particular window and its particular accidents/essences and substances, the universality itself is deductive while everything else so far as it is formalized is inductively applied. Formal logic typically disregards everything which has to do with real-world thought, and attempt only answering questions that relate to the structure of statements in the very general. Axioms are assumptions, many people will consider a priori conditions for proof as assumptions yet believe in the truth of the proof anyway, I have spent uncountable hours trying to understand the mind in which this makes sense but to negative avail. Which is to say that you may formalize "there is a straight line between every two points" as an axiom, and in some systems it is a mere assumption (general relativity) but it is non the less an a priori condition for the system itself, as this condition it is not an assumption, it is not for instance an assumption that you must have a base to apply a uniform metric to a function in calculus. The domain of "every point" is prior to us looking for them, it is possible to look for points because their domain is necessary. Logic does not rest on axioms, despite everyone telling you so, axioms rests entirely on logic (even the most inane assumption does so), the alternative is oblivion and paradox, not computational paradox, literal the 'sky became a literal pencil forever" paradox. Axioms are defined by being unprovable statements, yet some axioms are a condition for the possibility of computing all possible proofs (they are often implicit in actual formal axioms, these (proofs) are a synthesis of axioms by logical necessity. This necessity is prior to the very computation, if not then every second of our life would literally be us lifting ourself up from the bath-tub by our hair, which is a form of mysticism and skepticism in conjunction that you will find pretty much everywhere on this forum. Logic has nothing to do with completeness except for in the efforts at failing such a task, you do not have to find a consistent set of sets to be conscious of windows and distribute its identity over everything owed its essence, you are doing this NATURALLY, to be aware of this being what you are doing can and should make you more competent at doing it abstractly in your head, as I presume you desiring. Formal logic is almost the opposite of logic, and is analogous to building a boat instead of swimming in the sea, logic is like the air you breath in, it brings you a new moment. Metaphors in disjunction are our operating system and the condition for time as such, the units or metric of logic are metaphors. Pure mathematical ideals (that transcend the metaphors in which they are found) rests upon accidents of experience to be discovered and initiated in metaphors (by the synthesis of imagination), which is why it is so hard to admit to (or understand) them being a condition for our existence).