Reciprocality

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.

You are either gonna experience reality through concepts or you will experience yourself through reality, I would suggest minimising the latter, but due to the aforementioned weakness, were you also to lose contact with the emergent behaviour of humans, are bound to fail minimising it and repeat the cycle of self-search. Your concepts are your hardfought medium into the world, wisdom is for those who knows this, everyone else are children still in their twenties. We are here to grow by experiencing and reflecting, there are nobody for you to convince of the appearance of these, but if you pay attention to the primary human characteristic you will surely see that they have all here said backwards, and will employ the universal in each word to concealed ends, drawing thereby from you the energy they will lose by tomorrow. Pay a little bit of attention around you and it is all a horror show, so if you have this divine power of no longer needing affirmation yet fail to recognise the rarity of it then you are likely to make it go to waste. My method for sufficient distance from others is that I differentiate between the universal meaning of each word and my own analysis of its initial requirement, after time I will then spontaneously think the analysis upon hearing the word and answer instead to it than those whose intensions were concealed.

Us and the objects, they are of something that is one and the same. It is impossible to believe that this which both are made of is different than it is, because the very substance of the belief (as well as every conceivable belief) is itself identical to it. The naive materialist can only disagree with the first assertion above if it contradicts itself, and it can only contradict itself if it is contrived in mere abstract fantasy (by making predicates out of subjects). If then the naive materialist when out and about has no fantasy at all, as he can not have except for during his thinking, which he rarely does any of, then he relates no differently to the world than does the finest monk, they both simply are and no contradiction ensues.

The dialectics of our mind is a product of our incapacity to have a sense of self merely through addition of pieces, I am saying that other peoples perspective on us has a deep effect on us because they can see the whole of us through the part while we can not, humans were developed precisely in such a way that this weakness in each agent is balanced out by the strength of the emergent whole of these, that the emergent whole becomes contained in each singular agent and that they rest content with the result. A spiritual path seems to me to be met with in those who refuse to accept this weakness, who would be ashamed to lay bare for everyone but oneself to witness.

In almost everything I do deeper intents remain hidden, if I study my body language I find again and again that it is motivated to say something that contradicts my speak, would that contradictory subliminally ignited intension not be the kind of thing giving rise to the appearances other humans always intuits the whole of me through? The whole of which I on the other hand can not even see by adding piece by piece?

That it happens is unanswerable, irreducible, mystical. My emotional reflection is that it is astounding that something mystical can happen, but how could it not?

There is something here, I say it is in front of me, I say it has a screen and keys, I identify it as a laptop, I partake in the universal of "laptops", the identity of laptop is independent of me, it arises out of nowhere, and the situation wants it that this in front of me is such a thing. I do not own this duration of events, it is happening somehow on its own, the I is barely even in the situation so how could it own it? It is nobody here to take away from the spontaneity of ineffable object turning into "laptop" unless it were forced and contrieved by theory, something simply harmonises without discernible intent.

I am so fucking glad I never went to university, and holy grail I would have a field day with them if I went there today. I have discovered that negative numbers are a hoax, not in relation to the positive numbers, but in opposition to them "beneath" them. That is, there is no such thing as a progressing line from -3 to +3, this is an inconsistent idea already on the face of it, since you would have to first ascend from 1 to 2 before you had the chance to conceive a -3, and this is literally universally the case for every possible human, because it is true by the definition of numbers as such. If I also introduce how infinity is reducible to proportionality of geometry, and could never hope to be even attempted in relation to progressing lines non-geometrically as is supposed meaningful by those who speaks of infinite natural numbers (1, 2, 3...n) The whole concept of an infinity of natural numbers is negated by the concept of exponentiation unless you presuppose in the definition of "numbers" things that are infinite, which would be cute. Instead there is no such thing as an uncounted number, while on the other hand there are uncounted infinities, that is, circles, triangles and distances under condition of one another. (the shapes and silhouettes must be counted, but only the logical operation in addition to that counting will make us reach infinites) The reason exponentiation negate natural number-infinity is that however much you count you can count twice that. (exponentiation is counting of counting, so the same applies for exponentiation, if you then wish to count the counting of counting then again there will always be a new dimension of counting, and I know you smirk now since you imagine that I must have negated myself by saying that there will always be a new dimension of counting, but it is I who laugh since the "always" is literally conditioned on the counting itself, and becomes a "not really" when you don't, the "always" and the "infinity" are literal subsets of the counting themselves, since though they are conditioned on them they only appear as possibilities under some of the times you do count. If you have any idea about the theories of Georg Cantor and understood them it should also be obvious that what I say do not negate his theories, nor the other way around, instead all I have done is redefine the concept of number such that IT actually becomes consistent. Numbers are non-geometrical finites of time (this is without any possible doubt correct) and geometric shapes are non-numerical proportions of space, when things appear infinite in the former domain they actually have their proper basis in the latter domain. When you define the natural numbers as infinite, they are no longer numbers, this is not opinion, all you need are some minor thinking skills, what is most curious is that all I just said has a red lining to how I solve every possible paradox, by conceiving the simplest distinction possible, going all the way back to Aristotle: idea (the number 1, the counted, containment, whole, man) and concept (conditioned conclusion, derivative, proportion, duality). Thinking about negative numbers is like thinking about negative animals, instead of just negating them. It would be like stopping at the zoo a Monday morning and then imagining negative elephants by the off chance you saw an empty cage. What is also funny is that if you really insist on thinking negative numbers (under the condition that numberlines should be infinite both ways) they actually exist on the scale of 0 to 1, since an actual "1" only exist as a 1 of 2 and thus on the "scale" of 1 to 2. That is, 1 is the actual zero-point, for division and multiplication is the only actual logic of numbers and everything logical is 1 until it becomes 2, while on the other hand everything empirical is 0 until it becomes 1. In final conclusion, it is the insistence that we should treat logic as empirical and empiry as logical that has our models confused, everything bounces of the number 1 such that the duality of multiplication and division is deconstructed, it is all just proportionality/ratio, for there is no such thing as a possible mathematical theory that is not expressible in the complete absence of anything explicitly "negative", instead it has been invented as a useful tool, but as is the case everywhere where tools of syntax is invented: it becomes real for us. Wait til I get to algebra, the literal formalised insistence on involving unfinished answers in our questions.

Life is a teaching in that though everything that matters the most comes for free the spice on top matters too, and that the former is the price for the latter.

To make it concise: there are definitions of words, but phrases are not defined, phrases refer to something above and beyond definitions, unless you mean to speak about language itself by those phrases.

@Mysterious Stranger I think that the "condition" in "human condition" is vague, do you mean by condition our inherent nature, many would recognise it this way and so would I but it could also mean "the human individual as conditioned under both his nature and his culture". If this is what is meant by "human condition" I would actually feel permitted to call it a cringe attempt at asking nothing at all yet making it appear as though something is asked. If one understood the implications of asking the latter version of the question one would not ask it, since its answers would need you to step out of your own existence and then inside it again, but do you then see the "paradox", I wonder? "how would you define the human condition?" you ask, what are you actually referring to, not just seemingly referring to? If it is human nature you mean then you are asking what is similar between us all independently of culture, but this could not possibly be a definition?

One kind of syntax is for instance the "containment" in set theory, would it be plausible that it is precisely this kind of syntax which dual-n-back improves? Since dual-n-back seems to improve our thinking over the board?

@integral Indeed. Conceptions are logic, and logic are identities under condition of 1. one another and 2. mutual negation, the more space we have the more we are able to find contradictions in statements, patterns, theories and opinions. Ive been performing complex deductions for four years straight, and it has improved my working memory both of the concepts I have been thinking but also in relation to other kinds of things, it may even be argued that the kind of thing I have been doing should be more efficient than dual n back, since structures are forming between thoughts making them imply one another in ways that dual-n-back wouldn't. All in all it is all about perpetual exercise of containing different items in the mind at once, we need syntax to do anything except the most primitive logic and our mind teaches itself new syntactical structures when it is actually put to use. A question to ask would be: if any, what kind of syntax would dual-n-back instil in us, or improve?