Reciprocality

In other words: your question is absurd, that which is given can neither be something nor nothing. That which is given can not be in a way. Saying that there is something and not nothing presupposes that the concept of variation is a true attribute of the substrate of phenomena (I use the word "given" merely to refer to that which is actual without attributing it anything, the word "something" can be used this way too but my interpretation is that it is not generally so). Edit: and as soon as you refrain from this presupposition of variation then the question too is nullified. Let me clarify: refraining from presupposing that the given is a something (it being a "something" entails that it could have been a different thing, again variation) transforms the question into "why is there the given and not no given?" and I argue that if the given could not be differently and the only alternative is that it was not at all then since "nothing/no given" amounts to the concept of "negation" and the concept of negation is conditioned on some given then therefore the question of "why there is something rather than nothing" does nothing more than state "there is a given and I can think of a negation in general" . But due to your human intelligence you will like your ancestors did 30k years ago though these with regard to the concept of god induce its existence on grounds that all things have a cause even though evidence only affirms that some things do. That is, you induce that since some things can be negated then therefore all things can be negated, and do it unwaveringly. Yep I did the thinking, I'm correct.

Yes why is something at all? Funny thing is that when we first discover that it is necessary for something to be in some way as opposed to nothing ever being then we can afterwards figure out that it is the "something" that is contingent on the instantiation "this given way" of "some way", in other words, "something" is merely a concept. That is, it is not that something as opposed to nothing is metaphysically necessary as were first concluded, but that "something" is a logically necessary variable distributed on every actual data. The important following questions entails logically: A) is anything actual metaphysically necessary? B) is every abstraction purposive? and C) will consciousness be the connection between the subject of A and B in all worlds? An important definition: Metaphysical necessity must be distinguished from logical necessity, the former denotes things which does not need premises, validity nor computation to be necessary, the latter is contingent at least on both premises and validity (being a guaranteed conclusion from premises), though arguably not on computation. This is not merely sophisticated abstraction, when/if you understand what I am saying about the initial question asked in the thread turning in on itself then you will take the possibility of the culturally inherited ideas of substances and god more seriously/very seriously.

@Arthogaan Okay I have to add this, if you in a different situation were to say that c) existence is unthinkable then this affirms de facto that d) constructs are subordinate, which contradicts your assertion that "everything is a construct". The two statements c and d bare equivalent, and the apparent convoluted language in the prior comment shows you why.

@Arthogaan A) The reality which the constructs are contingent on is gone, all we have now in reference to that reality are the constructs, but this does not mean that the reality were initially a construct. B) You are flipping things now, whatever is here now is as you say contingentless, but this which is here now is not a construct. Did you see the problem? If everything is a construct then "construct" loses its meaning and is precisely unthinkable, if you want to assert that you are experiencing the construction of everything then you are placing the concept prior to the experience such that it could have been that there were construction without experience, yet if we investigate what a construct is we find that it means nothing unless it is contrasted with that precise thing you are predicating it of. How do we know this? Because the dichotomy construct/non-construct is conditioned on a logical operation of 1. sufficient particularisation of subject, 2. law of excluded middle, 3. principle of maintenance of identity and 4. law of noncontradiction, such that something, whatever it may be, is not both a construct and not a construct. All these principles and laws are not something you need to follow, but something that your mind does spontaneously, you could not think the concept of a construct if there weren't subjects which fell outside it. Following from the prior logic: The only thing you can not think is that which has no opposite, the true self or simply: existence. I wont blow my own horn too much but if you truly grokked the above you would create a lot of clarity in the mind.

I am often reminded of death now, not in a way which makes me uneasy or sad like it sometimes did before, but in a way which makes it very clear to me what matters and what don't. The mental gymnastics of appearances don't matter much any longer, its a weird drug during those years appearances matters most. Some days even appears as something sacred, as a surplus to what I have already had. I don't dare to expect anything, it would remove me from this very weird gift around me. It literally will not matter how you conceptualise metaphysics, it is baboonery in comparison to living right now, unless you truly value the next generations beyond yourself.

We are the closest to nature when we are separated from an intension to be different than you we, as well as the intension to be what you we. If the currency of culture had you conceive of the world around you as an independent existence, and you could at no point conceive a problem with this, though it may be at the detriment for your ability to discern between variables efficiently like the scientist does, would not imply that you do not live in a state of non-duality. It is instead, ironically enough, we who had the intension of deconstructing something who lives in a state of separation, who analogously has a hole needs filling. Physicalism is the closest you get to the world around you, non-dual metaphysics is a good epistemology but nothing more. Realism of identity is to human intelligence what colour impression and sounds are to the animal intelligence, to question the reality of identity is creation of duality, to be situated such that your instincts can even question the independent reality of the conceivable predicates is to be destined for the most extreme psychological projection of all: that "normies" lives in a bubble of self-deceptive separation, instead it is you who does by having the instinct of idealising an alternative. The truth is that civility entails self-deception, the necessary cost for all the fruits we can not now help to take for granted, implying that our infantile nature of divide and conquer is repressed for our better interest, in relation to this repression all dualities are mere ripple effects, shame can not be escaped unless you become a tyrant. Statements are delusions, beliefs can not be true, only tautologies are true, nothing can be stated of the universal subject necessarily. Intuitions are correct, so long as you do not allow them to pertain to the general principle you induce from them or even the principle you impose on them, for when you do you will subject your intuitions to fantastical doubts.

Reality is irreducible to mental constructs, mental construct is a concept that is conditioned on the logic of contradicting something that is not mental. Other people are not your mental construct, other people is reality happening independently of your constructs, you can not reduce reality to logic. All dualities break down when you get close enough to reality, and what you are referring to as "other people" is not the construct of these people but something on which the construct is contingent.

To confirm my hypothesis try watching a video on youtube in 4k of someone filming walking downtown in some city somewhere, these are typically from Europe. If in these videos you zoom in on peoples faces and you do not see the horror I do then there actually is something wrong with your mind. This horror is what polite society bear on crutches or covers up with bandages, the behaviour of people when they greet one another etc is a product of need, it is the supply to the demand, it is the bandage to the wound.

I don't like to smile and great people with hello, I don't like the need for it, I have instincts against playing into the need for it. But it is a necessity of advanced civilisation, ideally we would live in tribes of 100/200, were a conversation between each agent begun without the need for appearances to deflate well-grounded suspicion. Let me ask a very important question, why is the suspicion for others well grounded?

@Razard86 Every time I write, in other words, I am asking you to exercise your own mind in the same way it has always been exercised, by employing your faculty of recall grounded in memories to instantiate the semantics of my phrasings. If I ask you to conceive a farm your mind will spontaneously recall an actual farm you have been to, much of what I write asks you to exercise the same faculty just to higher extents. Edit: Though some of the things I write should be simple logical connections such as in this comment

@Razard86 To decode what is written, if ones thoughts are grounded in real events, is conditioned on establishing correspondence between the words and those events, if the text is read with the lazy attitude of only thinking in words then insight will look like poor writing.

Which implies higher purposes

Your eyes and ears implies the struggle of the whole history. Something were in want without them. Same is true for each variable, every thought. They all implies their need which in turn implies their insufficiency.

All the contrasts of shape, morhology, curves upon curves. Take any of your concepts, ideas and abstracts, why do you have them? Do you want to know? Did you know that limits can be established under which concepts can be traced to their origins the same way limits can be established within which all objects must conform mathematically? What do you think happens when there is no more peekaboo in any of your thoughts? And do you not think the methods above helps you with that? Transparency of concept is the holiest spirituality.

@Razard86 Look around, everywhere around you being just happens, what does being do? It does separation. Before all your own intentions the world just is, and how do you know? Because being separates itself into experience and experiencer. And what can your intentions do? It has no power here, all its power is conditioned on the separation, it can only fool itself into thinking that it could undermine the separation

@Razard86 If I ask you how "experience" can have a conceptual meaning such that you can denote on valid grounds things through that concept you must say because it is distinct from a non-experience, or that which experiences. And then you will throw that principle in the bin as soon as something instantiates that which makes that concept even conceivable, a non-experience, by saying that the concept has meaning independent of its condition. This you do unironically while being yourself already the reason why the concept is conceivable, by being distinct from an experience. You wish to have the cake and eat it, you want to engage in concepts with your "proper understanding" and then use these concepts without the restriction on which they are contingent. Its like you are Aladdin wanting to fly but refusing to do it with your flying carpet. Your only counter argument is saying that the meaning of experience and experiences themselves self-distributes in all things, but that is an explanation which is excessive and unfalsifiable, since we can explain what is going on with the relation between the concept of experience and experience itself without the concept of universal self-distribution they are simply over-indulgent or extravagant.

time has two aspects and many false theories The first aspect is phenomenal, it is the relation between 1. will and 2. rate of diminution of sense-impression and thought, implying the timeless state of meditation. The second aspect is physical, it is the relation between matter and matter (time goes faster because of gravity and gravity gets stronger because of the displacement of matter through time) The first aspect is time proper, the second aspect is a projection of our mind upon the world, informed by principles of logic. This second aspect is likely not time at all, and ineffable or indiscernible by our mind. (the duration between the big bang and now is 0, something must be impressed/imposed on for substance to provide a rate of change (diminution).

@StarStruck Of course, I raise certain points in precise relation to what you wrote and you do not even address them. But I don't mind, I don't intend to be antagonistic if it appeared this way, important part is that we learn and grow. Excuse my previous sarcasm, its those damn dopamines.

The highest freedom that I can remember to have experienced is when the physical world is a barrier between the character of me and the character of you or anyone else. It means that I do not have to solve your problems, I do not have to figure you out if I can separate you from myself. To the extent that the normies out there on a non-spiritual path of status-search and hedonism have a concept in their mind of the independent existence of material substances they live blissfully unaware of one another's delusions and self-deceptions, breaking these boundaries of inherited wisdom makes you into a super-conductor for human bullshit, it fine tunes your instincts to hide from modern people. Did anyone prepare you for this, did anyone prepare you for superhuman affinity for spotting the bullshit of others?

What fascinates you about applying knowledge in one field to another? Except for math? Do you have any such meaningful knowledge, and if not then how would you be sure that this fascination isn't just a fashion statement, something trendy, something you picked up on by hanging around the cool corner but which in the end would put the cart precisely in front of the horse? Just asking

If all you are saying amounts to the notion that several ejaculations every day makes it tougher to ejaculate an additional time, and that the more you do it the higher your threshold for non-sexual excitement then you and me are in agreement, though I wouldn't use the idea of renourishment here though it is relevant in survival situations. But don't twist it, you are saying something more than this, your are saying that the problem of excessive ejaculation applies as a plausible cause for your own change of productivity, even though there were nothing excessive in what you did.

This is horseshit, there is literally nothing here to repair, what is happening is that your concepts are altering how your consciousness experience reality. Reexamine your principles, ask yourself from which source you allowed yourself to believe that in contradiction to the condition for all evolution it would benefit those ancestors giving offspring to wait long before each time they got the chance to produce said offspring. What you should try to do is go a long time without food instead of sex, and learn that your ballsack is the last thing on your body which needs to be renourished.

There are two types of people, those who suffer from the knowledge of inconsistency in their character and those who suffer as consequence of not knowing it. In either case you are both partially blessed and partially cursed, I happen to be of the former kind and your post indicates that you may be too. The reason I say this is that there is no chance that ejaculation is sufficient reason for feeling worse as consequence, so since we can be sure that it has something to do with your psychology and your psychology being nothing but a composition of principles and there being nothing in principles on their own which can change how you see things there must have occurred a contradiction between one of them, perhaps abstinence, and your action. It would be magically weird if these contradictions did not have an emotional or conscious effect on you, as weird as an object not falling to the ground when thrown.

The relations between each variable behind each separate number beneath are distinct, but the things that relate are identical. 1. sufficient similarity between two things 2. recognition of the whole through the part 3. accident inhering to an idea In contrast to what I have done in previous years on this forum, rarely to any success, I will just state what I think without justifying it until someone asks relevant questions or has their own perspective on the statement. Whether what I am saying first above is correct under any given corresponding composition of definitions is verifiable in experience, and though nobody asked this is also the reason philosophy is so great, we don't have to learn anything new to know something new. Edit: keyword: spontaneity.

On my better days I sit in complete silence, not moving a muscle except those behind the eyes, lowering the threshold for excitement reconfigures the mind to be fluid (remember easily/vividly) even at the slightest movement. Edit: it is first under these conditions that birds and insects, trees and weather, waves and ocean becomes truly meaningful, we are of course, due to the disgusting current state of affairs, with rare exceptions removed from this wealth, this divine source of energy and intrinsic meaning.