• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Reciprocality

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday October 1

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

566 profile views
  1. I dont sleep at day
  2. For there to be a meaningful correlation between the set stage and the assumed predicate you must to the substance of the latter find exactly what constitutes the definition of the former. Because stages sometimes consists of ideas that are unknowingly not to the exclusion of another it is easy to confound them and make loose predictions of the mindset upon which actions are caused. It is even easier to distinguish them by bad deduction, as in distinguishing them where they are (again) not to the exclusion of the other. The predicate subsists in a world as a reaction against certain things, this SD model can help you understand its natural progression by finding on which basis it reacts. Because you refrain from being specific and clear in the post i must either think in variables or assume what you mean. For the pupose of this thread i should engage with the latter of them. Where blue is best defined as the ethic of conservation and expansion of unified tradition green is open for subsets of things beyond what its group can directly be enriched by yet hostile to whatever retards the potential for this openness. Blue reacts against things to the betterment of what is external to it be it of any cost to itself, green must not, in content some blue and green people can be in agreement but in structure they can not to the extent the model is valid and you have understood it. Blue does not mean you have to be nationalistic, you can be blue and worldcentric but not whereby there is no entity outside what they define as the world that must negate its growth. (as such they may desire a world government to the detriment of wild-life and aliens.) So back to the assumption, i assume by cancel culture you mean for example the one whereby men ought not speak on issues concerning women for they signify by their very being the patriarchies of the past or present, and if they do they must be canceled for in correlation to the maxim as mentioned before there is a conservation of identity as opposed to openness for things outside it. As i also defined green as opposing whatever retards the potential for acceptance of the things that do not cause direct growth for itself, it should be obvious why the two worldviews will sometimes overlap in content, and equally apparent why when both are transcended they will not (overlap) in structure. Can a green person fighting for the rights of the disenfranchised end up fighting for the conservation of its identity instead? Yes indeed, this is a cycle subjected to subsets of each progressive generation and ends up being a big reason that 1. the higher ideals fails there and then and 2. that progression in decades thereafter stagnates. I mean look at TYT. There is still work which needs to be done in canceling certain voices that makes it very hard for certain others, but it is a responsebility to see when and where more so then to conform to who. @Jacob Morres
  3. I don't feel much justice, i understand justice as an ideal good that is done to those who experienced something bad. I may even find it to be negative sometimes, in that it must first be give a certain value and then undermining the value one have given it by thinking something else can 'balance' it out. I feel passionate about revenge, though satisfied with the feeling of possessing the power to act on it in itself. Whereby the enacted becomes trivial or simply lacking incentives. When i think about it I don't even need the power for the desire to die real fast. I do love the idea of forgiveness, acceptance and reciprocal peace. But if we speak about theoretical values as opposed to applications thereof then i feel them very intensely.
  4. @Raphael What i am afraid of is that I somehow ended up not being scared of the idea of death itself. It is because when i contemplate just the idea of nothing life becomes a mere modality, and necessarily one of an non-finite 'number' of a like nature.
  5. So the question goes: either the set concerning what we define as democracy is contained within the ethics at roots of liberalism or it is partially contained within it. And liberalism is either neatly contained in (≥ orange) or it is not. Which is true and does the question really make enough sense so to contain the actual ideas concerned? I would not bet on it. These ideas are better understood as conjoined and associated then connected and deductive, especially if we find that the sets can not be structured within the others. You may find that if you push these categories enough they laugh back at you right in the face, as you end up reducing the phenomena of the world to the understanding of them. We are free to change the meaning of the spiral dynamic model at any point, at our will so to accommodate for anything, bear in mind it is the understanding of the concept being associated to each other which is the understanding that you actually posses. As such "blue democracy" means you either find liberalism to NOT be present in blue or you find that liberalism IS partially present in blue. If the former then THAT becomes how you define blue, and if the latter then THAT becomes how you define blue. The very emergence of these things defining each other should be enough for one to realize how they are not true on their own but as incomplete parts of the only true thing which is the whole. And there comes the first problem of dialogues as we so easily will agree to the whole, or anything we attribute sub-components to. Question rather the nature of ideologies then where to draw the perfect lines between them (as though you were a machine working on integers) the way you love a sunset this moment and food the next without deducing which is which.
  6. Funny thread, the past is not. The past was. The word "was" indicates an existent property in something which itself can not contain nor be contained in. Therefore the word does not satisfy itself, and is ultimately ideal. If you think it satisfy itself for there can be no other thing satisfying it and some entity MUST do it then you think it is real. Both are absurd, and amounts to the very silly assumptions our minds are not 'meant' to surpass, as belief in the one can only be negated by the other and only as such followed by the other whereby the first once more can be believed meaning you will only truly grasp one at present though believing you synthesized them by holding both at independent times. If there were a pandemic going on in certain circles, well that would be it. The only thing there is is now, does not mean the past weren't neither does it mean the past were. Uncertainty, deal with it. The idea is that there is a higher truth, a metaphysics which accounts for the past. You can not know there is such a thing, you can believe in "it". I would suggest focusing on what can be known and what can be inferred from there by faculties concerning necessity as opposed to conclusions on assumed premises. It is actually possible to tear away most if not all of these assumptions, detoxication. Focus on stripping yourself of what is harmful before you listen to content after content reflecting NOTHING MORE then what you assume to be valuable. edit: And don't assume this either, if the maxim is not immediately present or contingent on necessity alone, it is assumed.
  7. She spins 180 degrees with her right foot grounded then when her shoulders are perpendicular to the camera angle she switches to spinning 180 degrees standing on her left foot. In a perpetual cycle, then if i focus at her GENERAL torso as opposed to the legs she sometimes gets a full 360 standing on one foot in either direction.
  8. @CameronsExploring Its funny how some dreams contains messages so explicit you may end up more dumbfounded then before it simply contemplating how it essentially amounts to a dialogue with a living person that you don't even experience as yourself. What may steer you away from concluding it is a person in itself is the integrity and necessity by which the truth within it strikes you. For me at least i will immediately when i wake up understand the meaning of these dreams, this may even be circular in that i defined that set as explicit already. But i do without trying understand the meaning of some of these dreams in a way i can't when listening to some other person. x) We have all limits, in so far as we experience anything at all. Thus to say we are without limits is to negate any meaning that infers the opposite. Therefore to claim to have no limits is only epistemically grounded to the extent you know all limits to be illusory and consequently also each expression of the set idea as well. (as i read this myself it is almost like the expression is the only thing keeping what is true alive, and consequently how it fails at last) In this sense there are no difference to what is real and what is limit, this is a big problem for it means either that there is an entity outside what is known which limits us or that what is known limits itself. We can by necessity not know which of these is correct by the very nature of the problem, to the extent of course the nature is correctly diagnosed as i will maintain for now the logic is solid. y) At the same time you can only understand limits from faculties of discernment between things, in this way a moment must be contrasted with another without identical properties, and because such moments can not be true for they are imagined you have literally created limits for yourself. At this point it should be obvious how the very word 'limit' is amorphous with regards to the total of its application in this text, entailing a need to define at least its two divergent use cases. And can you believe it? It amounts to idealism/realism. Run it backwards and one may analyse you as one or the other. (the latter), perhaps these limits can be transcended by the very awakening to the possibility of the other, i would claim the generality of Leos videos must help with that part) The first clause of y will be understood by most academics as a reason to why one may mistake non-dual experiences as the infinity of existence. And likewise why it is so easy not to take spirituality any more seriously then they have done. As to your specific limits be them of whatever nature: you can only have any grasp of them to the extent you have done your best, and you probably have not. At the same time you are not gonna be the new Magnus Carlson even if you have no reason to say that you have tried your best at chess. Thus i will deem the very problem as complex, in that only time will tell and that it is better you continue trying then regretting not to.
  9. Many lazy answers here, that circles around itself. If you want an answer with an actual foundation i can at least bring you the question which will be prior to it. To ridicule another is no different on the core of emotion then to greet or respect another, to enjoy or appreciate another. It has no wider essence then what is emergent by the mere value one project unto the other, you ridicule another proportionately to the extent you value their existence. (not to say you value someones existence only so much as you ridicule them) And because you were socialized to certain extents you value the reflection they omits thereafter back on you (the only alternative), be it anger or sorrow. In this regard you have given them a certain power over you. The question i don't have a definitive philosophical answer to is WHY we so passionately value other peoples existence, you can say it's because without their many flavors we would not be able to form an identity of our-self (in which case the power we have given them truly is massive). This answer would entail the question of why identity is so important, in its core we may find evolutionary and sociological associations, but at the phenomenal level I really don't know more then to say it is an automatic passion hidden in the subconscious. This identity and its basic meaning should be familiar to everyone on this forum, but what may be a more unusual connection is that of how fundamentally other people are deacons to any and all our sense of self. The answer can be mistaken for a circle-logic itself, but be aware not confusing positive feedback loops for invalid deduction, we are after all traveling from causes to consequent effects. (some of which consists of cycles as opposed to evolution, and indeed we are retarded by our cycles) Some people feel better immediately after they spew their shit unto others, other people imitate a like behavior never to be satisfied even for a second. It is also possible tho almost not to be so distant to your own shit that you sincerely don't mean no harm and consequently don't value the target. It is for a second time impossible to not value the target whereby the action of ridicule is prolonging any meaningful sense of identity.
  10. If you find yourself constantly having to simplify to obscurity to be understood public speaking may not be for you, if you hate doing so then it definitly would be a steep mountain to climb. By public speaking in this sense it must be meant a 'monologue' to an audience you have not chosen, JP speaks to an audience which is an extention of himself and can therefore speak with ease to them. He can know where to draw the lines of abstraction by also listening to himself in the act by having a great deal of accumulated sub-conscious predictions on those he speak to beforehand. When on stage he pays close attention to peoples facial expressions, drawing on them to make even better prediction as he goes along. This gives room for creativity, the subtle information he gathers from the audience that is; makes him far more engaging to listen to. He have spoken about it himself, that he usully only have a general idea of where he may end up at the end of the talk, sometimes even being a little baffled by the progression made from the beginning. The less of a general apprehension of the audience he have the more simple he begins his speak. If you have a good friend of your own chosing which can understand a fair bit of what you say when you are streching yourself to the immidiate limits, and value those conversations believing public speaking would be anything like that then that must be the finest delusion. I'm sure you do not. To whichever extent it can be said that the delusion would not be apparent the audience is no longer "public" but an extention of your own choise, in which case there would be a far lesser difference to speaking with this friend. And if it isn't then it is because of 1. the lack of dialogue itself (x being lost in 'translation') or 2. the anciety of crowds. If you are ancious of how you will perform i believe that is healthy by itself, but if it ruins the quality then that is always where to first improve.
  11. The scary part is when you realize the only reason we are not this super exotic looking species is because there are none to inform us about their opinion on us. What is scarier is that you can in the window of a few seconds look at your fellow humans trough a lens which takes away your predisposed aesthetics. It feels weird to do, but i'm sure it only takes honest belief in how truth are a sum wider then immediate attachment. It helped me realizing it as true what i had only to that point believed.
  12. It can not be believed in, if by it we mean its real and not ideal entity.
  13. @OneIntoOne Lets talk of it? I brought the potential of it into the thread, do you have any thoughts on it? What would it mean that your gurus speaks on behalf of their own intellectual insights to say that those are the same as necessary insights to enlightenment and the enlightenment itself? I have my thoughts on it, but given that hypnosis is here the hypothesis i rather let you yourself reflect on me bringing it forth. Then me from the get-go corrupting it for you.
  14. There is really nothing to question about it if in its essence in lies solely the perception of the perceiver of thoughts, but just like you we can all confuse this insight with the implications it has on forms thereafter. (philosophy) This is a distinction i see very seldom expressed in the forum, Leo himself seem to even express them as synonymous at times.
  15. Its only route to a mainstream acceptance is for it to take back the word religion, not to preach with the atheists about religion being all-destructive. For it to do the latter it would need to deceive, in so doing it becomes the part of religion it supposedly were against. It is necessary that it organizes, it does already.