Reciprocality

Existence says through the creation of you that it is and every quasi-substance of the senses, and every self-subsistent concept is a necessary means for existence to be actual. It is fucking amazing, I can not believe how amazing it is.

Saying that you are conscious is not a claim about yourself, but is instead an affirmation of existence itself, it is most often called self-consciousness, congratulations you have discovered what characterises the whole species to which you belong. The reason you are aware of existing is irreducible, it is the only thing there exists, you can even discover through logical reasoning that the meaning of this realisation is inapplicable to anything else than whatever it came from, that it amounts to a contradiction to speak about an existence without self-awareness. We could infer from this argument that a cat though it seems to live a fairly long time lives only in proportion to how much it self-realises, and that this tick-rate makes the cat who lives from 2010 to 2023 actually only experience what would to us be a couple of weeks. Regarding things like "atoms in themselves" there is no time at all, for time is only meaningful in the contexts of the things in the mind. Edit: This should help the possible confusion of the first phrase: a claim about yourself is dual to to self of which there is a claim, and is actually the means by which existence affirms itself.

For sure the mind is powerful, it takes ridiculous amounts of self-judgement for it to operate socially, and it takes a ridiculously powerful incentive for it to judge itself, the consequence of these two powers working against one another for a whole lifetime is similar to the consequence of powers necessary to make diamonds, an almost indestructible object which takes an even more indestructible object than itself to destroy. Luckily you can cheat by penetrating the diamond with an object with a very, very pointy edge and very, very slim constitution, though perhaps it wont make the diamond shatter, and only replaces that in it which it pushed out on the other side.

Amusing, so you will not only think the difference between yourself and others but you will introduce a third element into the mix by differentiating between two kinds of others? And let me guess, this third element makes you non-dual?

Distance is a computation, it is derivative of intuition. It is a predicate never a subject, but the universe itself is just predicate and never subject, unless perhaps impenetrability, which as neither contained in the senses nor in concepts of reason is a synthesis of both, could be the actual subject and indeed substance of which everything else we think is a predicate. It turns out impenetrability is an expression of the hypothesis of opposition in the statement above of "mutually opposed matter". That is, the concept of impenetrability which actually is unthinkable and only experiential, can be applied to the border between each composite in every known experience way beyond the place from where it were abstracted, and this can be done both personally and scientifically. Is impenetrability a substance? Is it a predicate of no other subject even though we used its abstracted equivalent to predicate the border between every known quality? .. We can use the visualisation of the simultaneity of space to give a proper standing for the placement of this hypothetical substance, for since there is no continuum in the four dimensional manifold only 0-dimensional points we have precisely such a thing (in these points) which could contain the substance of impenetrability. If on the other hand there is no such impenetrability in these 0dimensional points then impenetrability is purely emergent and a mere accident in the substance of consciousness.

I know this is a very old post but since nobody cared to respond to it and it brings up a fascinating subject it deserves a revival. "Nothing" is a function of thought, it is a necessary means for me and you to be able to do anything more than merely react to stimuli, the stimuli is a given, "nothing" is similar to a nail penetrating a wall, and the wall is the stimuli, there is no "nothing" in things themselves nor a "nothing" beyond the universe, remember our discovery, "nothing" is just a means in "something" for the manipulation and discovery of that "something". "Nothing" is identical with negation and contradiction, its just that this one identical thing has several applications, in the form of "nothing" it is variability with regard to existence itself, that is, variability with regard to the presence of self-consciousness, in the form of negation is is variability with regard to the existence of a particular thing, and in the form of contradiction it is variability with regard to mutually exclusive definitions/axioms/premises and thusly mutually exclusive particular things. Variability with regard to self-consciousness has no possible instantiations (subject for predication), which is why "nothing" is a simulation and creation of the possibility itself of no self through the self. ^ This last part is very pertinent what regards this forum, because this is precisely the simulation you guys run every time you speak about enlightenment, spirituality and non-duality.

There certainly are no paradoxes. I hesitate to provide the proofs here but I can tell you that when you know the difference between self-subsistence of the duality in concepts and the actual conditions for truth-values every infinitely regressive paradox becomes nothing more than an engagement in form without content. The liars paradox becomes reducible to this: Premise 1. There is truth Premise 2. There is falsity or alternatively "I wish to conceive the concept of truth and falsity." Logic remains unharmed.

Randomness is what happens in the mind when something were unpredictable, when something occurred without a knowledge for their causes. If there exists randomness independently of the created duality of mind and object then its only possible evidence would exist at the smallest possible level of reality (feel free to ask for justification for this assertion) and be thinkable first when we reached a consistent theory of a relevant subset of the universe as emergent from this level. Yes you guessed right, we are very far from this kind of science. Most physicists who speculates about the independency of randomness conclude that it is observable in the half-life of atomic decay where though a sufficiently big sample size of atoms will fall into predictable patterns (normal distribution, imagine the bell-curve) each one of the atoms they say "decays" at a time and place, they argue, to which no possible material cause could precede the moment before, there is a mathematical theorem used as ground for this assertion, something about a principle of locality, well this is ridiculous for we already know that there exists a lot of matter that is necessarily unobservable because they, though really their category, are always simultaneous to us, never to reach us.

@Leo Gura No the soul is a childish notion. Or it certainly is childish to affirm its existence, but not therefore to speculate about its possibility.

Hi, is it just me who get saddened thinking about how extremely more advanced technology and cultural values will be in four hundred years, if something seriously bad don't happen in the meantime, and we wont never get to experience it for ourselves? If it were possible to sleep in some fancy tank for hundreds of years it would certainly be tempting.

@Carl-Richard I could begin from the conclusion, I could begin from that which without justification is mere narrative, this is how dialogues pan out in everyday situations, but I don't want a conversation to end up in the conclusions I could reach on my own, this would be a waste of precious time, therefore I provide always a reasoning in my responses such that I could easily know if you actually understand what I say and this process of reasoning is what is seemingly hard to convey. I observe that people do not actually care about contradictions in their statements, and have from these low standards developed the disability of noticing them, in your instance it seems that when I say that fomo has a cultural meaning you accept this premise but refuse to acknowledge that this meaning is inconsistent with my situation of wishing to move forwards in time. I am able to be flexible with definitions, this is almost always a necessity in dialogue, but you can not both accept that fomo signifies situations where people feel anxious of not partaking in something and then move beyond this meaning by applying the idea of FOMO to situations where the meaning is absent. 1. "Ultimately we all want to know more than we already know, it would be absurd to reduce it all to a fear" 2. I wanted to know more than I know already in my desire to move forwards in time. Therefore it does not follow that I am in fear of missing out, though it certainly would be possible, for your statement to be meaningful there would be a need for additional justification for the plausibility of my situation being predicable by "fomo" or I would need to intuit something about your statement that is in contradiction to my situation.

Physicalism is a monism, non-duality is as much the absence of mind as it is absence of body, he simply rejects the self from without it when some idealists reject the self from within it. To be without self is to be without duality, whether you try to explain away the mind or explain away the body after the fact will only be of peripheral importance. It is inconsistent though, he uses the self to argue for the singular substance of body, he uses the duality created from his self to reject itself, this inconsistency is solved by an actual present state of non-duality, it is equally inconsistent though to argue against the body by means of the body, like virtually everyone in here does. Another way to solve these two inconsistencies is to reject their truth-values, the way you solve every paradox. Which by analogy would be an intellectual non-dualism.

Impossible. Would be like the pastors, priests and kings from a thousand years ago trying to shut down art and poesy. Though there may be good arguments in benefit of prolonging its inevitable process, which would effectively be trying to shut it down.

Hi @Carl-Richard, Fomo (fear of missing out) is an idea that though it bares similarities to my situation probably don't fit it as a description any better than it does an alcoholics path back to sobriety or an occupied Ukrainian civilian´s longing for freedom, it certainly is not typically used in these situations. Ultimately we all want to know more than we already know, it would be absurd to reduce it all to a fear which were implied in your comment without further context, but not necessarily what you meant. It is not out of boredom of our current age that I said I wanted to travel to the future, and most of the stuff that is going on already doesn't seem too "normal". In addition the world will go through both globalistic and new-tribalistic tendencies within that timeframe, the former out of governmental necessity and the latter out of the realisation that though maximal freedom suits some it provides most of us with unsatisfiable needs and that today people build character out of idealising one another`s behaviour as though their personality were a painting while actual character is built when faced with people we don't naturally work well with out of scarcity, like in the million years prior to our modern age nobody seems to actually look beyond.

If during your study of a textbook you do anything besides read logical conclusions to information you already possess or read axioms you have yet to intuit for yourself then you engage the realm of pure fantasy and storytelling, and if you are involved in a university then you are expected to predicate/judge real situations later in life under these fantastical constructs, which adds a bias in the mix very few sincere humans can afford. This is efficient on large scales, and necessary for the perpetuation of the current western political systems as a whole, but intellectually retarded (sorry the strong language if it offends native speakers) on individual basis and the only way in which the modern culture could maintain the ridiculous notion of reducing knowledge to beliefs. Pure fantasy and storytelling is inherently a narrative for egos, and often a means for power and conquest, though in moderation: dignity and competence, to read 600 fiction books in 4 years is hardly dignified however, but instead to admit insufficiency on the part of character-analysis, to read 600 non-fiction books in 4 years is invariably a naive-realism and a horribly dim one at that, it is to re-imagine Platos forms as real yet self-distributed in the world and to imagine oneself as a partaker in the reality of these forms through pure fantasy. The human mind does not entertain information as speculative, it invariably creates meaning and opinion by means of the information, it forgets that it does not know what has begun to produce new intuitions, which is the only possible explanation why the academic institutions filled with the brightest minds can after so many hundred of years of evolution be even worse off now than ever before in how it treats the universe as a subject instead of a collection of personal predicates, and that nothing more is required for this delusion than observing one another point in the same general direction so as to confirm whether "stone" for one were "stone" for another. Edit: I can grant that plausibility of possible experiences is not pure fantasy, it is unrigourosly logical, and rests thereby in between but must certainly be granted as a fair and intellectually integral way of learning new information as were rejected in the first paragraph.

Originality is almost always painful, and unintuitively only possible through the methods that are accessible to us all, reason, you may want to be original for originals sake but it may be best to concern yourself with an actual object of interest itself as an end in itself instead of it being a means for how original your may appear, which seemed to me to be your goal. Original conclusions to big questions have not been found during study sessions in my case, i think the same is true for most, for me it happens spontaneously when I have been sitting a whole week with nothing but my own thoughts, they will occur more often in the morning and then I can spend 4/6 hours either recapturing what I thought or reasoning by means of those thoughts conclusions that are implied by them, I am at a point where I cant really communicate meaningfully with anyone I know, originality costs in that sense probably more for me than it has to do for you. I don't know if this helped, many idealise originality, and the reasons are plenty, so what are your reasons if you know of any?

Kant had his own way of saying most of what I believe this forum is about, that what you call reality is an extension of yourself. His method were simple, he did not begin with definitions, he began with exposing the justification itself for the existence of particular concepts, this is a remarkable way of thinking, it is also the only viable way of doing philosophy, the difference between most true philosophers and Kant is that he actually knew this and did everything in his power to succeed at it. If you think he started with axioms and definitions like the rationalists of his home country that influenced him such as Wolff and Leibniz and virtually every academic philosopher today then you really have got something terribly wrong. What he is attempting is to bridge the gap between 1. representation of the concrete world, I call these ideas, such as a chair, a house, a man etc. - Abstracted from the world through repeated exposure to the senses and geometric patterns. 2. the conceptual realm which can not represent the concrete world like the things above can. - Abstracted from reason through exposure to dialogue and contradiction. There is a complex domain of abstractions which exists somewhere in between these two categories of things, these are most often systems that contain a plurality of ideas the contradictions of which do not yet exist because there is no AIM to which the contradiction is an insufficient means, this goes into how ideals are absolutely necessary for humans to create concepts, but I wont go into it unless asked. You can call the former (1.) a direct representation and the latter (2.) an indirect representation, I do no wish to language police these things to a novice of Kants work, when you finally grasp what the difference between what is meant with 1. an idea and 2. a concept then the language you use to signify either of them can vary from situation to situation without the possibility to step in any trap. How do we aquire concepts that though they refer to something in the world could not be acquired from the world to which they refer? This is Kants question, I wont introduce his jargon here and fail my hopes of being understood, but it truly is mysterious (at first) the mechanism by which we come to realise the difference between for instance in and out, up and down, dependent and independent, variability and invariance, explication and implication, accident vs essence, I believe that the way in which dichotomies (which is a characteristic of of all possible concepts) are acquired is through nothing more than the affinity for contradiction, that this affinity is itself never payed attention to, and thusly renders the origin of concepts mysterious to us, is because it is the means itself by which we pay attention. We can analogise between this particular means above and the means of typing on a keyboard such to understand clearly what the thing is that they have in common, I have written hundreds of words in this comment but if I close my eyes and try to remember the feeling of my fingers of any given typing combination I will fail miserably, I wont go into the reasons why I wont remember anything but hope to have demonstrated that the time and place of the means themselves by which we do anything is susceptible to being forgotten. That upwards and downwards becomes a duality is possible only if contradictions arises among our mere ideas WITHOUT the duality, to exemplify this statement consider that you wished to tell someone that you have a staircase in your house but they were unfamiliar with two-story houses, to actually communicate intelligibly the purpose and thusly the meaning of a staircase you would have to communicate the concept of upwards because without this concept the purpose would be unthinkable for the person you speak with and thus would there arise contradictions among the elements of your house in the person you communicate with´s imagination of your house. I would consider the idea of a second floor as an accident in the substance of upwards, and use substance theory (without actual metaphysical baggage, only substance in form) to convey the possibility itself for the two people to have a conversation in the first place, though in reality concepts are the least substantial thing, which is also why mystics are the only correct metaphysicians. Kant intellectualised the existence of something he could not describe/predicate, Kant put brakes on speculative philosophy by showing us for instance that we could not prove through logic the existence of god or the soul and that it were absurd to expect material evidence for something the concept of which were immaterial yet contained a materially derived essence such as power in the instance of god. Kant is an ACTUAL sceptic. He lived most of his life skeptical to the independent existence of the objects of his own perceptions and created a dualism out of one of several possible solutions to the problem one is prone to find therefrom. The dualism between a. Mind, which he argues is indispensable and b. that which hides behind the appearances of the mind, his argumentation for this in the Critique of Pure Reason is a direct consequence of what I referred to in the beginning of this comment, he exposed the NEED for the concepts he used by finding contradictions that occur computationally without those concepts and then refrained from saying anything about these concepts except that they had their rightful place IN THE MIND; wherein only they had any subject for predication, this is TRUE SKEPTICISM, this is the likes of David Hume and Matt Dillahunty on steroids. An inconsistency in Kants philosophy do occur when he both says about the things-in-themselves that they are the cause for the thing-for-us while saying about causation that it is itself only something-for-us or of the mind, to argue for a solution to this problem would probably be necessary to be a respected Kantian Metaphysician today, of which there are very few. In any case, Kants dualism varies from non-dualism as a teacup varies between tuesday and wednesday, he is all aboard with saying that you are identical with the objects that surrounds you, in fact he creates the only possible conceptual duality for a person to think that he is one with the objects of its surroundings without actually becoming one with their surroundings. Is existence possible without unification? Or alternatively, is unification possible without self? Kants thing in itself or noumena tries to answer this in the affirmative, this question is out of fashion, but I have no doubt it will come back to haunt us in hundreds new ways for the (hopefully) thousands of years to come where the dogmas which were present as much today as when the Critique were written is considered as just that. And lastly, I can guarantee you that there is nothing in non-dualism that rejects the possibility of an independent existence of things themselves, it simply remains neutral to that very sensible question. If it matters for anyone then Ill tell you that during 2022 I spent probably 400 hours reading Kants Critique, and far more thinking about what I read, he is the biggest man in European Philosophy after Descartes with good reason, I can see the shadows of this weirdly brilliant man in pretty much every philosophy that came after him in the European and American tradition, whether its Postmodernism, Process-Philosophy, Existentialism, Phenomenology, Idealism, Absurdism and even Physicalistic thought. Analytic philosophy is not philosophy, it is a mere explication of the relation itself between premises and their conclusions, so that Kant had virtually no influence here doesn't matter in that sense.

Take a good peak at half the opinions on this forum, should sober you up alright, you know the kind of sober you get from jump scares in horror movies.

you have to love it

You develop good taste and find that only two percent of those you typically watch are worthy your time anyway, and that unless they engage that in you which require your conscious efforts it is evident of your weakness and that as a maxim you suppose yourself strong. You develop your negative judgments (note they are not in want of material on the site you reference) and feel into how ridiculously limited your time is (and should be) as this pile of tissue, perhaps then you will not need the bandages presented elsewhere in this thread, but lets admit it, what are the chances? So I vote for the path to least resistance, find the plugin for you" : )

@Inliytened1 No if non-duality is real then actuality is a necessity, and of want neither of god nor its power to create itself. If reality is non-dual then god as inevitably conceptual in communication is void of all meaning that is not also present without that concept, If non duality is real than our descriptions of a god owed a definition is false, if god is owed no definition that is not equal in truth value its referent then the claim "it has to create itself" is vacuous, empty, meaningless, absurd, silly, ambiguous and corrupted.

For that which is possible there can not be a possible state giving rise to it, yet for anything actual to at all be given it must be also such a thing of the power precisely to make something else possible, this then which is possible is confined to and never itself beyond what is at any state actual, that there are anything at all is thereby a dance of the will in an interplay with the things not initiated in possibility by means of it but given life from it. What is ultimately possible is therefore all things, the reason we are given any particular such light is neither here nor there, for any sufficient reasons are self evident each, and in proof thus found in all directions. To that which is possible only actual states can give rise, and in all actual states possible ones are come actual in the force of will, but owing to some force Y there are the possible in the actual itself, this Y must have no inverse for otherwise nothingness as a then condition for infinite will would be necessary, but such can not be the case for then what is actual now as the condition for what is possible in itself would be subject to doubt, as nothing else than doubt suffices in the face of things which could possibly have been otherwise, such things then are taken both as possible and actual with no regard for bare minimums of cohesion. The problem arises when the will is confused for the means of thinking its representation, as predicating the past of that which is only present in our aid for making actual what in the actual is potential. The freedom of the will, though minuscule in its own right, would never be so powerless and out of order to be contained in that by means of which it gives rise to new moments (such as memories), instead it must be in their eternal proximity. We are then justified in saying that for the little control we have -- nothing carries over into the past but all is with us towards all futures. That which is possible f in what is actual T (now) may very well itself be necessarily actual trough inference; in a prior universal chain of events yet determined as such as the actuality F of that possibility f long after T. In fact, no world failing to follow this rule of dual actuality to possibility is even imaginable (imagination as the outer limitation for all possible worlds), and such a world would thus be impossible. Something which is possible can not be the condition for the possibility of something else, the will must be the only thing preventing what is possible from actuality The dual actuality to any potential are related to those potentials by means of either a-p in force Y or p-a in will, all of which are totally encompassed by a law of causality, which itself takes the form either in 1. magnitudes of substances / magnitude as duration in time (part to part) or 2. emergence (community of parts in a (seeming) immediate and definite whole), both of which constitutes a finitude of objects given us as patterns in what I deem constant reality as =1. in addition to paragraph 1: What is actual can never itself be the singular condition for something else that is actual, due to which temporality crossing (visiting) the constants in reality (substances) as that necessary addition makes determinate those substances and ultimately the supreme necessity of not only something as opposed to nothing, but also of the very something in particular. We may expect that which is equal to 1 in the combined whole of the world of substances to fail our instruments are their smallest, not merely by engineering but also by our own intellectual upper bound, as evident already reminder of need of edit

There is something about the rain, how it lives so very well also at our deadest. There is something about the soul, how it carries us out into any such fluid. There is something about steps, how each of such multiplies into any presence and how tomorrow forms in that presence as its ultimate end, there is something in the rain. A becoming into itself, an emergence for its own end trough accidents of its substance. Elements in their reduction as emergent from a form they are without, empty. Elements as accidents not in what they represent, neither in how they appear, but in how as appearance they are given in reason, they are forms given us trough our reason, but not as such forms the condition for that in which reason takes hold, mind. Otherwise we would as suggested elsewhere, explode into a hot soup. Elements as essential representations of the thing in itself, but accidental of it in how they are combined together to fit into our desires. Elements as analogies in combinations, as necessary on their own, metaphysics as the maintenance of their compound. Metaphysics proper speaks not in the positive, but acknowledges merely how for being there is required that nothing is taken away from it, that in certain neutrality nothing more must be said than 'I wish me some music while in the storm I carry on', to not die of apathy in the face of insignificance as the ultimate realization not of the purity of awareness which has nowhere to turn, but as our self's certain annihilation. Our, mine certain annihilation from the manifold of temporal variation, the soul coming to rain. Never completely to return in figure yet never therefore totally absent in form.

My thoughts are like fluids, which is how they are so hard to predict the outcome of and justify fully, yet so well adapted to fill out empty surfaces and spaces. I have changed dramatically to counterbalance that, I have put shackles on the mind to hold objects with its hands, and it were good I did.

You can triangulate some sense of your behavior by testing for all sorts of things, including Asperger, but it makes little sense to say that you are a statistical representation. You can not have Asperger unless you are Asperger, therefore as in line with the above it is absurd to predicate Asperger of you, though there surely are instances of people where it would be more absurd. This does not help you with how to understand the diagnosis itself, as neither were it supposed to, it is meant for you to consider yourself as though you are Asperger, but not literally so. If having is not being then having means little to nothing. There is a triviality of the classification itself which admittedly has no bearing on the importance of considering yourself antithetically and synthetically in relation to the idea of the diagnosis and the many symptoms under it, it is not merely a quantitative matter of degrees that makes for the triviality aforementioned but a paradigmatic matter of which ideal diagnosis could be by statistical means best predicated of you that is far from real today, and that even this ideal would not as a statistics essentialize you but merely be better as a means for making sense of how you behave. The system is simplified the way it is for good reasons that has to to with scarcity, it would be like a sin to reduce ones own comprehension of oneself to that which makes the bear minimum run its wheels, I do not suggest that you have done so in particular, only that it appears a lot in general.