Reciprocality

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.

Now enough from me, now ill go away and do some more theorising and logicising, like this particular character enjoys doing, its gonna do a lot of thinking, but what about? Not itself.

And what about how much you obsess over whether others are carrying the deed you do not dare to carry yourself? How much you strut around "checking" whether or not they fit a literal barometer of "god-like behaviour", how it all becomes a massive narrative? You are doing it all because you don't want to be natural, and now you are stuck because you have created an identity of already being one of those who are natural.

Have you ever considered that to be a guru you kind of have to be a master manipulator? To be a master salesman? Not out of ill-intent but to convince other that they are far more than a thought when all they do is think? Have you ever considered that by attempting to become like the guru, to become enlightenment-like, to have this or that set of characteristics you have, again, flipped it all on its head? That instead there is nothing wrong with how you carry yourself as you do already, that this is effortlessly taken care of either way, that instead what you actually look for is here already and that every word you have used to describe it just feeds into more ego. That instead, the ego can be appreciated on its own terms, and accepted as insufficient in "realms" beyond itself?

It is so tiering with all these stories, and they are made of smoke, which is why I refuse endlessly to think anything that isn't a theory on something that is way more interesting than me, I can not help being suspicious that many if not most of you think that the smoke of your personal existence can be put on fire, lit up, enlightened, but that is to have everything backwards. The smoke is there for a reason.

All thinking, all narrative, all I thought, think and rethink that I am becomes meaningless drivel once I notice that the clock is ticking, the literal light around me, the sounds around me becomes hundred times more interesting than who I want to tell anyone that I am.

There is seemingly no end to how conscious you will become when you understand that this is it.

If you hold your breath for a minute until it becomes terribly uncomfortable and then pinch yourself very hard it will be noticeably less painful than normally. Is it because during those last seconds before you just have to breath in again the pain receptors no longer have their typical purpose, that there would be no evolutionary advantage of feeling the same amounts of pain when another survival instinct kicks in? This may imply further that in our everyday life the pain receptors are activated, could they be deactivated? Would several survival instincts at once be a disadvantage for our focus, independently of the variable of our production of adrenaline?

I notice that sometimes I forget that others have too their own private sphere of thoughts also when they do not speak, and that I will never have access to this. This relates to the ideal of dignity, it developes it further, it is in want of dignity that we forget that other people are in this sense just like us. Yet it is egoic, curious? Perhaps if dignity is ever absent where the ego is present the inverse would be possible too?

This is when I get mystical on you.. The very, very weirdly beautiful thing about these homogenous substances of four dimensional simultaneity is that there is no medium between them except inside each of them, because otherwise there would be a real duality between medium and mediated, instead this medium is inside each substance and so is the rest of the universe. So how does it look like when time progresses inside each of them? And are we not hard pressed to argue that there must be an equal number of these substances in the beginning of the universe as there is now? In fact we can use the affirmation of the answer to the last question as a proof against the theory of non-simultaneity most physicists have their own ridiculous version of in their head from the "implications" of general relativity. The other difference between this and typical ideations of "Indras net" is that the "distance" between each of the substances in this theory is always different amongst one another.

Imagine that every time you double the radius of a circle you exhaust the outside of this circle until at last there is no outside of this circle, this would be possible only on a finite plane. Imagine now that you maintain an identical quantity of circumference throughout the imagining above on a separate scalar plane, imagine for instance a cartesian coordinate system on that separate plane on which the identical circumference of the circle is represented as a 0 dimensional dot. However big of a portion of the whole plane you took you would just be a point on the coordinate system, but how would the lines themselves of that coordinate system behave under various inputs from the size of the circle? This is a 2+1 dimensional representation of how the indeterminate simultaneity of the universe "behaves", not only doesn't 1 meter exist in the universe but it doesn't even model ANY of its continuums and is itself a discrete property distributed everywhere yet never to add onto itself in any direction. The set of "2 meters" is also distributed everywhere, but as implied above never in the same places as "1 meter", as is the set of "10 meters" distributed everywhere without being divisible into each meter. One triangle is indivisible into its circumference in an analogous way to how the metric and the units are inherently curved and stretched above. This is the simultaneity of the universe, this is the forth dimension, time is an additional dimension (5th) though nothing more than space and mutually opposed matter. When you move sufficiently far in ANY direction in the four dimensional manifold you will end up where you started, but there is far more direction in which to go than there would be in an equivalent three dimensional infinite space, the infinity i talk about here is like a circle not literal/additive. There actually is a perfect 1-dimensional direction from point a through b-c-d-e and then back to a in the simultaneity of our universe for the same reason every volume in this simultaneity contains discrete units and never continuous metrics.

Consider the starry heavens, the stars are representations of the past, but if we instead of visualising the presence of the appearance and tried to visualise the presence of what those appearances would look like if light traveled here immediately (and the slowed down again) we would have an insufficiently small outlook towards them. (there wouldn't be enough heaven for them all) This actually means that the 2 dimensional identity of 360 degrees are insufficient for a full rotation in proportion to the distance you ideate from the perspective of a determined subject and its object, and we are therefore in a four dimensional manifold, this manifold (so far as we wish to separate ourself from the mathematics of the universe, which even an enlightened monk would do if he wished to model in his mind how it behaves) must be in simultaneity, which means that time is the fifth dimension. The amazing consequence of my discovery is that you literally are the boundary of the universe, for you "repeat" indefinitely in its simultaneity. You don't actually repeat however, cus nothing can travel through the medium of simultaneity, it is only through the medium of time that the model represents the world itself, which itself bares certain ontological implications to dimensions beyond the fifth.

I am fine with having a word for failing to understand that logic is the creation itself of rules through maintaining two or more identities in a formal or even informal system. The real problem here is that there are no independent rules, and so the inconsistency of our thinking only exist when someone notices, and then it exists only for themselves during the noticing, and so far as I understand your teachings I am pretty sure you will agree to this statement, but then I can not fathom why you would consider this paradoxical in any other sense than as I mentioned above: it is unbelievable that we exists at all, for belief requires the creation of rules and we can never outbeliev ourself. No amount of logical conclusion could ever possibly make it absolutely astounding that the world is actual, non to mention possible, yet the world is astounding, through our failure of logic.

What what you just said actually means is this: "is it not weird that there is at all anything?" or "existence is unbelievable" And I am almost certain this will be misunderstood. Falsity is created out of truth, there is as you have repeated again and again: only truth. Falsity is an emergent layer of truth, it is in your language god playing with himself. The inconsistency of our thinking does exist, and it is not a paradox that we have a word for it, it is simply an additional layer of inconsistency to think that the first layer of inconsistency were a problem on the part of logic itself and not our own ability to think. Logic is nothing more than a re-instantiation of premises together in unity. Their unity creates the rule. When you wish to think a 1 you have already thought a duality, and you have for yourself now a 2. every other discrete number follows from this under its rule.