Reciprocality

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.

The perpetuity of a state of beauty, nature, oneness, the absolute, god or enlightenment is ridiculous illusion. That you expect anyone to show you that they are awake is a profanity, one of which only the need for narrative could be responsible, instead your mission is to find back to what you really are without expecting to remain you when you become it. All that this forum is about is the method of finding back to what we are through judgement of what we became, and so you describe, discern, predicate, differentiate between one another, towards the creation of an even more separated self, all in the name of becoming one.

There is a tendency to think that when you have been stuck in a shell for a long time and finally freed yourself from it that other people are stuck in it too. But they are instead stuck in something very different, spirituality is confusing this difference for a commonality. If you pay attention to people in actual physical interactions after having let go of parts of your ego/self you can actually begin to notice that they are rather different than you thought they were, that by implication you had judged and misunderstood them all this time because all you had at your disposal were a shell of yourself. I wont go into my own trap and say that you will all experience this phenomena if you pay attention to others after such ego absolutions, because it wouldn't be a trap and I would be correct, so the question is how much will you try to pay attention to others instead of using preconceived models for the purpose of literally not having to think.

@Moksha You are creating a duality between "limited conceptual capacity of the mind" and "failure to think logically". You are creating the same problem that Leo creates when he thinks that there are paradoxes, I would actually bet that if you gave me sufficient time I would be able to convince you that the trap you both fall in is identical and that I could show you why you create it and that you can solve it. You create a duality between yourself and your "capacity".

@Moksha Yes, life could become terrible if all we did were logic, for instance, if I were to think the way I do the first three hours in the morning every hour of my life I would need a psychedelic trip/day long meditation every other day. I think logic is not only a limitation the absolute places on itself but a limitation it needs to place on itself, and that its absoluteness does not hinge on whether or not it could choose not to place logic on itself. To look deeper than logic is to fail to think logically, and this failure is non-propostional truth, an absolutely amazing experience if you will call it that, just completely indescribable, or so it is in my case. When you fail to conclude that 20x20 is 400 you actually do not fail logic, because whatever you thought were simply guaranteed from your premises, the problem were instead in your clarity of the premises themselves. ^I think this last phrase would clear up a lot of misunderstandings earlier in the thread, and since it is a very esoteric philosophy of logic, though irrefutable, can be important to pay close attention to, and if you have questions to it I will try to help.

@Moksha Logic is made out of the absolute, so according to logic there is no absolute, just like how according to an atheist there is no god.

@Moksha Nothing I said implies otherwise, and let me do you one better: Reality is beyond logic. Reality is already the absolute.

Implications to all this, which may become dry as hell but worthy of mentioning is that inference rules and things of this nature are all extra-logical, that is, that the literal field of logic is an investigation into something that is not logic by means of logic. Logic becomes not principles of identity and non-contradictions but principles becomes immanence of identity and non-contradiction through the self-replicating nature of axioms and their self-subsistence in thought. : ) it is beautiful stuff, you have no idea the highs I get from these insights, I thought Actualized.org were all about insight but as soon as it involves anything resembling an explication of the methods of insight, I get met with a wall of "logic bad", well I have news for you, no amount of storytelling will make it true that you become a mystic by rejecting how you think.

@Hojo I hear you, you ego deathed and then you ego revived, and then your ego creates a narrative out of the experience to feel like it makes sense, and then you use other people such as on this forum as means for it to appear to make more sense while you are still an ego and it no longer is dead. Or you tell me?

@Moksha You are equivocating "anything" with these: "totality", "the already given substratum" or "the composition of the senses". That logic fails to reproduce these three from its limited means in our limited intellect does not mean that it is incapable of anything. You simply don't understand the problems that philosophy tries to answer. And can therefore not know where mysticism becomes necessary, and what it actually is in opposition to what it is not, such to speak fluently about it with others. Edit: on the other hand, your mystical insights themselves may be golden. And I am sure I could learn something here.

"Up" and "down" do not exist in the universe, it exist in concept, it is actually you who says otherwise when you insist on the reality to which your notion of "paradox" is supposed to correspond. You expect of logic to give you something more than what were already given in your premises, this is literally logicism. You probably even think that axioms are beliefs or propositions, but also this is false, axioms are the nature of indivisibles, they are self-subsistent, they are the condition for propositions or beliefs, this is what Godel actually discovered, axioms are immanent knowlegde, axioms are immanent truths. Axioms are the creation of the metric itself, and only under the metric can we find consistency and inconsistency.

@Vibroverse @Leo Gura All you are saying amount to this: "We wish to maintain the integrity of discrete numbers/integers, 3 is an integer and so is 10, through the act of dividing the latter with the former we have now reached a continuous variable (3.333..) and fail to maintain the integrity we sought to" and then "we failed our mission, it must be the fault of the conclusion itself" The problem is that the concept of discreetness and division are two sets the subsets of which are antithetical to one another, and then that you wished it weren't so by "maintaining the integrity" in the first place. What you end up with is that you must begin with at least two axioms that as sets never contain subsets that contradict one another, and this you do in a way I could teach an 8 year old, you bring forth the nature of dualities and do not allow them to describe anything in empirical experience as though they were borrowed from experience the way ideas like "mountain" are.

@Moksha It is the other way around, the idea of a sunset is created out of experience somehow being fixated on it from no intention of our own, it is in approximation to the ideal of things that experience is abstracted into imagery and when socialised: language and then becomes what we call "ideas". Though I don't wish to be absolutistic in my approach to philosophy it would be hypocritical of me to feign uncertainty on this matter, certainty is in fact a condition under which philosophical questions are made, precisely because there are uncertain things. I wont engage the contradictions that occur if I were to reverse the order of ideals and ideas as you attempt, and show in addition how the result is a fake mysticism (which in no sense implies that you would be fake in your mysticism), unless asked directly, such that the questioner actually feel required from inner conscience to engage the logic. "This is a fruitful discussion, because it illustrates the conceptual limitations of philosophy." Concepts are limited only so far as they fail to produce the material ground itself for their existence, this were never the task of philosophy, and for those sorry fellers or "brilliant philosophers" as you call them to whom it were made into a task, of which there are disturbingly many, a confusion of their own acquisition of concepts were always present.