Reciprocality

I were always able to fit in, but what I did not know then that I do know today is that I were also always able to not to, and so what has happened during all these years when though I integrated their stories and opinions of me to become similar to them I were only fooling myself while when they underwent the same process they were fooled by others. They are today living under the veil of their childhood, they repeat ten times the patterns they are aware of while I repeat a tenth of the patterns I am aware of. Dissimulation has me in extreme control. Edit: this is obviously a story, and far from a literal statistical truth, yet it is far more true than it is false.

When they say "mememememe" I say "thisthisthisthisthisthis" If I began to write about myself I would feel terribly ill, but it is obvious that since what humans wants are stories by the bed so they can sleep well during the night I should give some wriggle room for myself to reacquire their methods.

Most people on this forum has me confounded, all they talk about is themselves, or is said in implication towards something about themselves, yet they purport that it is not there. How so many people are able to do this identical thing and fail to notice how ridiculous it is, not to speak about how obvious it is that they are only doing it because other people are too, and how even more ridiculous that is, would have me in tears of laughter if it weren't for the insight that if I were them I would do the same thing and that in so far as they do not harm anyone there is no good reason to separate myself from them, they will at some time or another be at peace with the limitations of their ego, they have come way too far not to.

When you think too much every concrete instantiation of reality becomes an element in a conceptual system, and you no longer see the wonder of life under these conditions, and what is worse, time begins to tick forwards faster. This recognition is more than anything else what has made me wary of studying science, for I would then begin to live life faster through constant predication of the data of the senses. That being filled up with a million fantasies from scientific textbooks is the standard for "educated men" when all it does is make your intelectual matabolism run faster and your dying day closer, is revolting. An ethic/utility concern must soon be discovered in scientific communities where questions concerning not only what information is superior to another but also whether the information is superior to its own absence in the human who thinks it.

@Jehovah increases Hmm, could it be that when you refer to "infinity" you are referring to the substrate or substance of your experience? We define a substance as that which is not a predicate (or description in more layman terms) for anything else, and under this definition colors, sounds, touch etc would be, so far as they are not reduced to descriptions of cars, lamps, humans, bodies be infinity, (never themselves to obsolve, die crumble, be negated)? Or is it that consciousness is the predicate of nothing else and through this becomes non-dual and is what infinity is? Or perhaps both are true simultaneously? That 1. everything in experience and 2. the unity of it all (consciousness) describes/predicates nothing other than what it already is, and is substance/infinite properly so called?

@Kuba Powiertowski I think this is the biggest philosophical question, so I applaud you for having discovered it. It is the "meta" question of philosophy. We can only fail in describing the already given, and our only method is 1. imposing on it (and through it) stories and myths and 2. deriving theories on it from what it already is through logic. So why do we continue doing it despite necessarily failing? Despite never being able to draw our own hand itself? In my case I have gone into substance theory as a last bastion of hope towards depictions of reality, but even here it would be an insoluble question to ask what the purpose in these theories really are, even if I were to succeed in making reality necessary through arguments regarding its many substances. "negation is only possible in our limited minds, there are unlimited things, therefore something as opposed to nothing is an absolute necessity" " I also don't think this human experience should be taken as a total prison you must escape as soon as possible" For sure, if we are too quick in our movement towards self-absolution it may be an escapism from the harshness in the concrete problems of our lives. Ill reflect on the rest of your comment, and when it comes to comparing me to Watts I certainly have a steep curve ahead of me to live up to that standard so far as rhetorics are concerned, for he must have been unparalleled in that area.

Every time I judge someone, regarding whatever it may be, I do it because I recognise in them what were already an affinity of my own. That part of us which were born out of rejection of our own nature is simply prolonging its own existence through judgement, our ego creates a story of being separate from our nature, it makes little difference in the long run whether the object of judgement is externalised or internalised, it is all the human need for narrative, to not be enough. We lose the ability to see the beauty of absolutely everything around us in proportion to the intensity of these narratives.

@Jehovah increases So right now all you see around you can not be better described than by the usage of the concept infinity? Yet by writing on the forum right now you are in constant clash against your finite self? Please tell me if somehow this is wrong.

Negation is the only "nothing" and therefore "death" that has meaning for the intellect, and so far as the ego-self is concerned this "death" is pure imagination. Yet substance or substrate is infinite, indivisible, absolute, it remains while we no longer express it. Just like how you see colors when you open your eyes and I see non when I have mine closed, and so too is the inverse true. God is substance, and according to god we are mere modes of "him", I thought that this were your (actualized forum) insights. When we become aware that we as limited self-identities are finite we become in touch with our "infinity", and then fail miserably in holding onto the realisation.

@Jehovah increases I am a bit disturbed by how you could confuse what I said for the death of infinity when I try my best explicating the opposite, and I have spent adequate time on this forum to not think this is by intent. Your particular limited self, this is what absolves, whether through the absolution of its body or through psychodelics, not infinity itself.

@michaelcycle00 What time if there's none? It's an illusion after all. Time is finite and illusory construct in the absolution of self-identity, yet it becomes reality through the limitation of self-identity. Our consciousness is already infinitely forward and infinitely backward in "time". If the "our" in this statement were our identity then this would be impossible because the identity is created finitely, this is the nature of duality, and in the finite there is always singular forwards time. If the "our" in this statement referred to the god-self then neither infinity nor time would function as meaningful predicates in relation to it. No beginning and therefore no end which nullifies time. "How do you know we're not on the nth chance already instead of the first? " "We could have one chance, two, 8 billion... no difference." This presupposes a soul, which is created out of speculative logic, instead "we" are always under change, and can experience nothing except for in relation to the place we come from and the unknown place we move towards. On the other hand, if you referred to the god-self in your statement above as "we" then it would be contradictory to say that it could have one chance and also be infinite in expression. "What is there to lose anyway?" The unknowability of things does not imply the impossibility of things, your whole life function as evidence of this statement, whether or not you believe your life is a mere memory or were actually lived. Therefore the unknowability of the things of the future does not imply that things are impossible in the future, all evidence suggest that there will unfold one and that the future becoming of us have something to lose, we can lose our own becoming, the crystallisation of potentiality, that is what we have to lose. And this is the mode of substance that you did not ask any question concerning the meaning of before you responded.

Many thinks that character is an egoic construct, yet that can not be so for nobody has one of their own, and have instead only the character of others. As a consequence of this ^ understanding can you theorise that it takes real struggle as opposed to creativity to develop character in the world, again, it does not come from within, but is instead projected onto you from without. The means by which people project onto you the character they find in you is identical with the means by which they find patterns in things, and so if you never had to struggle in your life this will take an identical nature in you as it does in others, just like how the seed for two trees will be identical for the one who holds them in their hands yet the trees themselves bifurcate into entirely different shapes. What actually happens is that people who never had to struggle try to synthesise the behaviour of other people into an ideation they call "themselves" and can live half their life unaware of how their true character in not yet existent. True struggle is absent except for in the trenches, do you think soldiers are self-conscious?

If the stuff I have written on this forum the last week were read by an advanced humanoid civilisation from hundred thousand years in the future not only would what I said be obvious (were they to interpret it in the context of the meaning of words anno 2023) but it would not matter to them. The reason it can be complex or impenetrable to you yet obvious for others is, as unintuitive as it would seem, that thoughts are inherently simple. Every thought is the metric for the next one, just like how in the four dimensional simultaneity every monad is a reflection of every other, and so when I think any one of my concepts the rest of my conceptual frame follows, only when we are forced to reconcile contradictions will what is simple become one step less so. The inherent simplicity of conceptual thoughts is contained in how they are without exceptions built from non-contradiction, except for in intuitive geometry, where they are built from non-opposition or impenetrability. The non-opposition of the world of causality, or simply impenetrability, in the fifth dimension of time is synthetic logic, it goes without exception from conclusion to conclusion (simultaneity to simultaneity) without regard for premises and decomposition, the coherence of this world is built through our subconscious mind (or whatever the fuck the universe "is" itself) and the opposite method of world building, found only in the conscious mind, is deductive logic (the only conscious logic), that is, the principle of non-contradiction.

@r0ckyreed True, from the relative perspective death is imaginary, in the "absolute" perspective however death would be an absence of a particular mode/composition of substance. Though it will cease to mean what we mean by death, that is, the descriptive definition of death in our culture. Edit: and to be sure, it were the latter meaning of death I referred to in the post.

Have you ever noticed that your state of mind at any given point is a consequence of what you have been doing in the hours, days, weeks and even years leading up to it? And that the peace in this state is proportional to the absence of story/narrative contained in that process?

If it is confusing to anyone here that someone whose every statement is a theorem could end up in this forum and maintain that it is here they belong then consider how ridiculous it really is to think, as they all do in academia to various extents, that narratives exists independently of any narrator, or that houses exists as material and independent realities, I mean this is the height of insanity yet it has been the norm for how many years now?, and every half-baked philosophy made during thee centuries are made from attempts at bridging the gap made from that belief by means of logic, which of course is impossible when the foundation is already absurd. I would rather be misunderstood by everyone inside this forum than everyone outside it. Spiral dynamics stage green postmodern thought of parts of academia has its conclusion right, yet it rests on no foundation to which it is aware, that is, there are no facts, the foundation is that reality is identical with the perceiver, and that the concept of "fact" is made from the opposite supposition, but when you still maintain that there is an independent reality and also that this independent reality exists to every perceiver yet reject the proposition of a factual reality then you get the worst of both world by attempting to get the best of both worlds, the construct we are left with from these people is summarised as follows: "There are my truths and then there are your truths." It is impossible to know anything through your beliefs, and only possible to believe anything through your knowledge. The proposition that there is a factual reality is the converse of the above statement.

If you train yourself to notice the difference between someone who is in need for his concept and someone who is in want of that need you will therewith know the difference between someone who live as humans have done for a half million years, in search for a fitting narrative, and one who rises above it.

And if you think that the multiverse is a theory you are out of your mind. Edit: Universes are neither outside nor inside one another, they bare no relative relation to one another whatsoever, because inside and outside is a self-created notions of each of them. Reality is not conditioned on matter, the substratum of what we call matter is homogeneity and has insufficient reality on its own (no duality), which is why we are duplicates of its self-simultaneity and therefrom the creation of time. This time is a five dimensional chaotic crystallisation process of diminution of the mode of substance, the expansion of our universe is the physical expression of this. Nothing is truly infinite except for the amount of expressions of the affinity for experience throughout the infinite multiverse. Our particular ego-self means absolutely nothing towards the higher and higher expressions possible of life. To live freely is first possible when you don't compare to the magnitude of it all, yet recognise in yourself the same kind of thing which all possible expressions of life will ever take in this universe and could ever possibly do in any of the others.

A bird is an expression of the affinity for experience, this affinity is the only thing reality in itself has, every possible conscious creature is an expression of it, Schopenhauer called it the will, Kant the thing in itself, Leo absolute infinity/god, Plato the Ideas, Nietzsche self-affirmation. In some weird way it is the mystics who refuse truth by making appearances of what is not, though even this is nothing but truth. Throughout the eternity of the multiverse there will be expressions of experiences, and there is no other way and there were never any other possible way of doing this existence-stuff.

So when I say dignity, and do nothing more than refer to a generalisation of an experience, and speak of nothing more or less than the possibility of experiences, you confuse the thing I am point towards for your own crippled notions of a meaning of the word. You have literally created out of logic the meaning of something that has no foundation in direct experience, and you think you are so clever by refusing dualities in the very same motion as you create those that don't even exist, by imagining that ideas are in conceptual opposition to one another, when instead they are in disjunctive opposition in mere judgement. That is, regarding a mere something (variable), it is one of an uncountable array of ideas, the rejection of each singular element of which is in no way an affirmation of any of the others, until you have exhausted them all, to say that dignity is dual to indignity is to say that when we don't want shit thrown at us we go through logical steps and reject every single ideas (headphones, lamps, creativity, forrest, Jupiter etc....) until only dignity remains and becomes consistent. If for instance you wanted to be able to criticise orange/green SD stages from above it wont help you to understand their methods from beneath. The duality dignity/indignity is created out of the logic we involve ourself in during and after the experience, the affinity for the experience itself however is not, even though also this affinity is identified through distinctions and an additional layer of logic.

@Moksha The distinctions in terms of which we are different through the intellect of our minds are made from logic, and are not the ideas themselves (only concepts and systems), which is why so many of you confuse solipsism for mysticism.

Other humans are more different to us than animals are, not in the form through which their intellect creates distinctions, but in the content of the distinctions themselves. To fail to see this is to fail to some or other extent a theory of mind, as it is called when instead of conceiving that others think the thought we do they think entirely their own thoughts, even when language makes it appear otherwise. Failure of doing this is analogous to eating shit, under their common expression of, yes you guessed it, the absence of dignity. To think that dignity comes from the intellect is to believe that the world is created out of logic.

@Kuba Powiertowski Yep, we judge others and thereby create ourself all the time, and then what this process amounts to is actual judgement of ourself, for we have then created rules for who we should be. This is as you implied necessary for human living, no amount of enlightened sorcery will make your organism, whatever is the ground for your being, become a new one. And so this deed will be carried until your last day. But by defining ourself not from how we are opposed to other people but by something of intrinsic worth, by addition instead of division, and treat that in us which has material towards that end as and end in itself, and start to notice the effortless perfection and beauty of things then there will be less and less inclination for judgement. "Life without this burden is a flight into the sky." Yes, but instead of a flight from the burden we find something to replace it with more and more for every day going by, then the sky wont have to consume us completely.

So you sit there with your screen like a confused ape looking algorithmically for signs of whether I am trying to fool you of my enlightenment, for it is the only method the ego has. You need others to guide you because this shit is way to much for yourself to handle, and so you create for yourself a crutch you may never be able to throw away. Now I refuse to use your narratives and impose on my direct experience the ideas of "infinity" "god" and "absolute", when what is actually going on is either that I cry from how indescribable, ineffable, absurd, extreme, peaceful reality becomes through me, but reality itself is non of these descriptions, it refuses to be described except for in our thinking mind. The pitfall I have identified in most of your cases is that you believe there is somehow a "right" way to describe the indescribable.

You probably even thought that this were a critique of the forum, yet it weren't, for what I describe is the hopelessness itself of having lived for a lifetime in the world of constant need for narrative, story and identity to even function. It has to be discovered that you have imposed that need for being someone onto yourself, and that you can let it go. In some weird way it has to be spontaneously let go of. When you are a seeker of truth and oneness the only possible way to remain stuck as a seeker of truth and oneness is to differentiate between enlightened people and common folk. The last barricade your self identity has imposed on you to feel in control.