Reciprocality

Everything of the mind is subordinate to the physical world but not therefore reducible to it. And nothing physical is conceivable. Something substantial is inconceivable, the physical world is the inconceivable substance. Every duality that is twice positive and therefore involves more distinctness than the product of conception of negation itself is instantiated independently of all possibilities to the contrary and are therefore necessary truths, their truth though necessary and contrary to conceptions of negation are negative (their truth are negative), since positive necessities are always computed in opposition to a possibility in general (a conception of negation). That negative necessities are possible would for many be required before they think about whether it is actual, but this is done on grounds of confusion, that which is negatively necessary will never be possible and can never be shown to be possible unless we mean by possibility such a broad category of things that in certain situations it affirms actuality, this is redundant and fails the axiom of discernibility and requires us to be either inconsistent or fail sufficient exhaustion. I am then saying that the twice positive duality between the physical and mental (both having positive content) is a negative necessity (a necessity that can not be affirmed positively through logic via the concept of negation), that upon reflection we can know that it would be impossible for either of the two to exist without the other, all the contents of our minds though they are subordinate to the contents of the physical world have morphed into a variation of it, and this variation is positive, and this positive entity is distinct from the positive content of the physical world prior to the capacity for reflection (through which we can think a negation or contradiction in general or affirmative necessities), therefore it is impossible for the duality to be false, yet if the duality is attempted to be fully conceived then our conception will fail.

@Princess Arabia It would be absurd if when we looked for the self directly we would find it, this is because the self is an instrumental entity for engagement with the physical world and representations thereof, the self is only there when it is a means for something else, typically something purposive. "The self doesn't create anything because there is no self. " This presupposes (without further clarification) that all things must be created by another thing, why couldn't the no-self create something? Other people react to us as though there is an ongoing coherence between almost everything we say and do, to not call the coherence here for a self places false expectancies on what counts as a self, and if you pay enough attention you may find that what you are absurdly expecting from the self is that it should be as rigid as the physical, but why do this?

@Yimpa Instead of telling her what to do I said what I do to imply that taking problems with others insistence on logic when logic is inevitably what one uses oneself is hypocritical, but sure fascism next. Edit: if what you said were witty it went straight past me

Let us explain everything we can within reason, let us use the intellect while we have it, perhaps we might not become clearer and clearer about the wonders of our world.

@Princess Arabia You are stuck in illusions princess, duality is self-creating, it is the natural way of things, you can only appear to resist it to yourself. There is nothing about duality which implies that everything is not one thing, to think so is to give too much credit to the mind. You use logic for everything you write, I try to have the same standard for me as others.

The physical world can not be put into words, and that is the reason it is real. edit: Physicality is the one and everything else is belief and narrative.

That it is impossible for the two things to exist without the other is semantically a different statement to saying that their duality is necessarily true, they could have been taken for the same, and could still be de facto the same, so to clarify: We do not know if the negative necessity between mind and matter implies that it is impossible for either to exist without the other only that it is impossible for either to exist without the other within the limits of our being and similar beings. There may be a bigger or different being independent of the situation of the matter which surrounds us and our mind and independent of the necessary distinction between them, though that would only be possible if possibilities precedes our creation of them through conceptualising negation -- in which case our intellect which is subordinate to perceptions of the physical is non the less applicable to non-experiential things.

In any given moment it is prior, that may sound contradictory since time is linear and what is prior to now is after another moment. My statement would indeed fail to make much sense if that is what you think of when you think of something being prior (linearity from first to last), but since vocabulary is limited this is nonetheless the closest concept I have available to describe what I and others mean with prior in the relavant context.

I have differentiated between negative and positive necessities for a long time, the terminology could be confusing but I have no better words for them currently. There simply is no doubt that there are statements that are necessarily true by definition, even if all their contents are semantical, but that does not mean that there are not necessary truths that precede calculation of their guaranteed conclusions. Edit: if it is self-evident that if there are such necessary truths then it is absurd to ask whether they are possible before affirming their actuality. But can you understand why that is so? Why would a possibility be conditioned on the ability to think the concept of negation, and why would so many philosophers say the same?

Over a period of a few years I have been taking the idea that consciousness is singularly fundamental to reality seriously. It reached a point where I became identical to my perceptions or where the self would be mostly absent for hours at a time for days on end. It were a presence without much discernment, it were raw experience. Looking back at it I think it has been something I have needed, a reminder of not being the centre of the world but also a reminder that very little is intelligible without that information going through my sense of self as opposed to existing out there in the world itself, that however deep I analyse a given situation it is I and my own past which produces the content of that analysis. With all that said, it is undeniable that idealism in the form "everything is consciousness" or "consciousness is fundamental to existence" is delusional, if by the essence of consciousness we mean things spontaneously acting or thinking, notice that if you mean something different from this by the concept of consciousness then your concept may constitute a conjunction of essences that makes the two statements above tautological and inconsistent with a. culturally inherited semantics or what philosophers call descriptive definitions and b. actual debates about these topics under those definitions. I am not saying that non-spontaneous things could exist without consciousness (without spontaneity), I am not saying that there exists a physical world with time and matter which is more fundamental than consciousness, instead I propose not only that 1. these distinctions are contingent on a self-distributed real difference between the things we refer to by spontaneity and non-spontaneity, but also that 2. the two are in eternal disharmony and that 3. the formation of self-identity (in the child as well as in the elderly) is the natural attempt at unifying them, and that unity is reality, reality is not the absence of personal self but the presence. The end point is this: physicality is weirdly the most important aspect of our self-identity and it could potentially be for the better to leave it alone, allow therewith the sense of self and reality to be enriched. And to moderators: I am unsure if I should post this in the consciousness sub-section of personal development sub-section so here it went.

@Hojo As I see it this is an expression based on initial expectations that were never warranted. Nothing around us is happening independently of them being unified with us, but that does not mean that they are not happening. In our culture most people believe that the stuff around them is happening independently of themselves, therewith placing absurd expectancies for what it means for something to happen and could potentially end up writing something akin to "nothing is happening" when they were disillusioned from that perspective.

@HojoOkay good I can relate to a lot of this. The way I would frame what I think you are saying in the quote is that all perceptions are intelligible and purposive and that the self which we often feel on the "inside" is actually implicated in every single observation of the "outside". But my main response will be below. Your first statement in the above quote paraphrased for clarity: "The essential element of consciousness instantly becomes what you are not focusing on when you look for it." Like my hand moving about without me focusing in on it and trying to move it?

@Hojo If the singular substance that takes on many different shapes is nothingness then are you aware that this amounts to saying that there is no such substance at all? Effectively refuting your own assertion?

@Hojo I hear you and appreciate the perspective, you are referring to an ineffable singular substance that takes an infinite of shapes through eternity. What are the essential elements in the meaning of your concept of consciousness? What are the things that is identical to all states/instants of consciousness such that your intended meaning by the word "consciousness" is intelligible? These are questions that has nothing to do with what you believe about reality, these are questions that makes it possible for your statements to be received and analysed in the first place.

@vibv I have no doubt it does, holding you accountable to your own statements and asking questions for clarification is certainly mentally masturbatory.

@vibv There is also a way in which, due to the nature of a logical compliment, that one can necessarily not be lost in concepts if one knows exactly how or why they compliment experiences unless one is actually lost in experiences. This would go contrary to your first assertion in the last comment above.

@vibv Okay interesting, your hypothesis is that no matter how distinctly ones concepts refers to and compliments actual experiences one can get lost presumably in their composition/relation? Or do we get lost directly in the complimentary nature some concepts have to experiences (such concepts that does not refer to anything concrete), if so, which subset of these? And if one get lost in this composition of concepts must it obfuscate from real experiences as you say, why must the latter follow from the former? Are we talking about contradictions and recursions when we say that people are lost in the composition or complimentary nature of concepts? Do we not determine whether this is true by usage of concepts that does not contradict and does not recur excessively?

@vibv You can only be lost in concepts if you are unaware of the experiences they represent or compliment. There is no implication that people identifying experiences fails to "capture consciousness". You read one sentence after the other and fail to keep track of where you get lost, thereby disabling yourself from asking the question of why they connect and resort to projecting that it must be the writer who is lost.

@Leo Gura Since you understandably brought up the concept of freedom of will in reference to spontaneity I will make some short comments on the confusion. Will and spontaneity has an overlapping essence, is potentially identical concepts, I will use them that way in the following remarks. It could be wise to instead of going into the ontology and metaphysics here begin with what we can and can not know, we can know that physical bodies moves as a consequence of their prior coordination and inertia, what distinguishes spontaneity or will from these types of movements is that the nature and existence of their sufficient causes are unknown. The freedom part in "free will" has to do with whether concepts or knowledge in preceding an action could out-manouevre itself, and this kind of thing becomes a necessary pre-condition for the will itself to be real for those who believes nothing besides phenomenal experience exists. (when you believe that the existence of unknown causes for will and you do not believe will to be substantial then to explain them you need to resolve to the last possibility: that abstractions could "out-manoeuvre" themselves.) The concept I am referring to is clear as day, but to describe it in english.. not too easy, what could I mean by "out-manoeuvre"? Right now I can only hope that it rings a bell. The disjunction between these three kinds of general causes presented above should be intuitive, 1. inertia and momentum of physical bodies in arrangement/coordination, 2. unknown substances and, 3. concepts or knowledge (abstract representations). The fourth cause would be will itself, it would be absurd to list it here.

@meta_male I don't know why that alone should be unhealthy, bodily reactions are there for good reasons, repulsion as any other. It can be noticed that when people read the phrase "I am repulsed" and react to it as though the writer have a negative demeanour against these people they were repulsed by that they are projecting what it would mean for themselves to write that statement. This could explain the weirder responses in this thread. What would become unhealthy for me is to judge people for this rather innocent behaviour that I described in the OP.

There is something about overly civilised people that repulse me, have you ever felt the same? If I see someone sitting on a bench in the middle of a big city with thousands of people walking all around them while being as calm and carefree as they would be in their own living room then how could this be explained differently than that they live their lives in some fugue state often predicated on the belief that if two things have been known to be associated or correlated then so will they continue to be?

Every single piece of focused information goes through the self, is discerned by the self, builds up the self. That were already how the self were built. Every concept is purposive, all purposes refers to the self. How do you have purposes, concepts, discernment, focus, eye-movement or any bodily movement, yes spontaneity itself without the centre of it all being a distinct "me"? Not just here on earth but in all foreign realities?

@Leo Gura It appears initially to humans that the stuff that we perceive could exist without us perceiving them but this could only be true if the body and its sensorial apparatus existed without its spontaneous movement. (since a chair can not be a chair without sensations) (there is no spontaneity which does not develop a distinctness of self) Amazingly this spontaneous movement is what we have come to refer to as "me" through gradual steps primarily in early childhood. Awake? There is no depth there to have awoken to besides the substrate of direct experience and the accompanying disillusionment of narratives, the self-identity holds everything together.

@Leo Gura To be sure I am using the concept of consciousness under the very definition I have denied in the post (that it is everything) to make this conversation even possible, if this is not taken into account then stark contradictions arises between my last comment above and the denial of idealism. Consciousness without spontaneity can only appear to be possible inside a theoretic framework, no theoretic framework is needed to state the opposite, that consciousness without spontaneity is impossible, since all possible such frameworks is conditioned on the duality of real spontaneities and real non-spontaneities.

@Leo Gura Consciousness without spontaneity would be the red and purple with mere inert movement, such a movement would have no reason to connect to thoughts and self and be purely theoretical, indeed fantastical. excuse the edits.