Reciprocality

But that does not mean that the thoughts occurs by an intension of that thought the preceding moment, as my statement could be interpreted as. Clearer: For most if not all our intensions to be realised a thought must exist prior to the physical effect, but that does not entail that all thoughts must be intended, I would even argue that though most thoughts are not contrary to the will it is also not the direct consequence of will, arguing opposingly implies a false dichotomy of will-illwill.

@ivankiss Sometimes against the will, but since the precise thoughts we think are here for a purpose and the will is always essential to purposivity it would be hard to argue that most thoughts are not the effect of will.

A thought is a very densely packed representation of one of two things. Either A) something that you have once experienced or B) a solution to the contradictions that occurs when the things that you experience now comes in contact with A, a representation. The former goes often by the name of "idea" or "imagination", the latter goes by the name of "concept" or really: logic.

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?

To summarise, new truths are created all the time, because our perspectives creates our ability to act in the world, the outcome of our acts are new truths. The perspectives themselves are not true OF anything, but the condition under which we can discover new truths. The absolute truth however, it is always, and it is immediate in all those "new truths". And this is not much of a theory either, the problem is that it is weird-sounding until it becomes obvious, @Leo Gura when you reference an understanding of truth what else than what I just stated would you mean by "understanding"?

What matters the most is not whether what you said is true of anything, but whether you actually live according to what you said, for much like how Jordan Peterson says that you do not choose what to believe in, neither do you choose what is true. If you live honestly truth will multiply on itself through you, so truth is mostly a becoming, not a being.

Sex is both a social construct, your own construct and a biological reality. These things do not exclude one another at all, sex is expressed in various ways in different domains, no two people agree what sex is, and no two people would ever be able to abstract out of an identical dataset what objective reality the idea of sex corresponds to, since no two people have lived the same life, and the objective reality of sex can not stem from a personal dataset of subjectively determined characteristics. For this reason, it would be wise to actually think about these things in terms of variables, instead of already given myths, and ask questions regarding what kind of new myths would be useful to understand these variables.

Knowledge of truth must be a dialectical method, for the immediacy of truth to be something different than that immediacy. There are no true narrative of the truth, this is the whole non-dual point, every conceivable essence you wish to "abstract" out of the immediacy is made from the ideas and logic you superimpose on it, and the truth is beyond logic.

@Leo Gura There is no you to choose what is true, it simply is what it is and then the "you" is formed after the fact. This is the reason I said what matters is that you are honest with yourself more so than anything, for if knowledge of the truth is possible then this honesty is the necessary condition. So when you say that it is more fundamental to "know" what is true and what is not this actually assumes the duality between already given truths and already given falsities, thus negating your own theory that everything is truth.

All the curves, all the silhouettes, all the colors, lights, shapes, objects, dimensions, geometries, patterns etc, it is all incredible, the way it all operates coherently or even operates coherently regardless of whether you are aware of it or not, the small little variations of the light in your surroundings and the small little variations in the causes leading up to it, the freedom you have to analyse and investigate all these things. Though as soon as you try to convince someone of it, as soon as you try to inspire others for the same realisation, that everything is perfect as it is, as soon as you tell a story about it it becomes no longer it, but seemingly something else, the beauty of it all disappears as soon as I try to make it something that it isn't, I cant avoid it. To communicate with others is in some sense manipulative, it is inherently to make the immediate reality into a reference to a similar experience of both our pasts, this is the nature of our ideas. The truth is that the abstract world is absolutely beautiful as well, in a completely different way, and so is the way it operates so fluently with all the things I mentioned first above, it is a big wondrous system in strike opposition to anything otherwise human, our insanity lies in how statements are put under doubt, how our whole assertoric landscape of expressions is perspectival and therefore impossibly true. But the things I mention here know no possible antagonist under which they can be put under doubt, to confuse its self-evidency for a want of importance is again a reference back to the perspectival world as metric of measurement, there is no possible way to obsess sufficiently over the beauty of the already given in this world, you are not partaking in that obsession you are the object of that obsession because it can only be you who carry it over from yesterday to today. The part of us which expresses these things in the forum is not the part which is aware of it, but the part which needs to be contradicted, the part which wants to experience the world in new ways under the gaze of that contradiction, and so we continue to blabber on uselessly like apes, but there is nothing to say here except for expressions of uncertainty.