Reciprocality

Will the quality of your writing be directly proportional to income? If not then you have freedom to be more original, is it the absurdity or originality of your thinking which makes you feel inadequate to writing as a career? Perhaps it is rhetoric that you struggle with, how much of your self are you willing to chime of in order to meet standardized norms? When I make myself understood then all the substance of my thinking is gone, would you be happy regurgitating the bare minimum for others pleasure, or would that be too shallow? There are millions of various classes of audiences, is it possible that the struggle you have with writing reflects of the very people you interact with more than the writing itself? I am not diagnosed autistic, but if I assume the meaning of such a spectrum then I am definitely on there, and will only say that you have to know your audience, the quality of your writing has nothing to do with the closest people nearby, unless we speak grammar and syntax issues.

You say you are honest, but you identify with the part of you which says lofty words and not the part which fails on actualizing them? Perhaps I am wrong in this characterization, but then what you really want is not what you think, but instead mediocrity, or indeed whatever you already are. I say to myself that I want to go running, but then I don't go running, I realize that I don't actually want to go running, given the evidence. We think in this time and age that we can be what we say we are, this relates to how we think in terms of social identity, if we can fool someone else then we have become in their mind who we want to be without effort. Why else would we end up fooling ourself on our inner motivations?

Imagination is required for reality to appear, sanity is required to differentiate the state of imagined reality and fantasy. Funny thing is, when you in your sanity bring about reality, you do not have to understand that you are imagining it. Reality is there whether you in your imagination of it are aware that you do imagine it, imagination must therefore be differentiated from its faculty, as only then can two people of differing views hope to say something meaningful in relation to the other on this topic. The faculty of imagination is imposed on the empirical world of senses, as well as in the inner mind. When this distinction collapses, then and only then will it be true by revelation that reality is imagined, even the most viscous defender of material dualism can comprehend the distinction phrased like this. The utmost absurd thing is having lived a life in which the reality seemed totally different from imagination, and yet impose ones own revelation of that not being the case onto the very character of other peoples state of consciousness and the logical structure of language itself as others use it.

Then you are just armchair hypothesizing, then you are just engaging the predicament of being a better man, then you engage in fantasy so that you do not have to put in the effort. You don't know what you want, chances are higher you one day will if you accept your naivete, as is mine. I don't think I want to be nicer for instance, for I put no effort in it. What I want can NOT be whatever I am supposed to, nor wherever my thoughts take me in some moment. Honesty presents to us what our motivations are, our deepest motivations require us also to honestly fail.

JP has been eaten by a world he does not understand, I consider him heroic, for he battles it even though he knows so well he won't win. He knows there are deep reasons humans materialize into what he now consider his arch nemesis, he does not compare against their weaponry and he has a kink for this fact.

Your motivations are who you are, if you won then you become who you are. If you do not want to be motivated by what you are motivated by then you want to be someone your are not. But because also the wanting to not be motivated by x is its own motivation y, you are therefore becoming who your are regardless. I would choose the path of becoming the winner of the initial motivation, it is unlikely to escape you anytime soon.

It is an unbearably monstrous irony that I am the one depicted as too "logical".

@thisintegrated That is the problem, you see something, then this something which is seen is mistaken for how it serves as symptoms for something else, so to at last become instrumental only to a certain model. You justify doing this because of how well you felt it once described you and/or how statistically significant it is in relation to populations, and how much mental effort it pardons you from with regard to people in particular. Although I agree that the myers briggs is useful for pinpointing differences in people in general, it is almost insignificant in understanding the convergence of particular people, categories aids you with the former, but confuses the substance of the latter, going back to the post. I am very much tested as INxP, verging on the F with about 55% T. Two things can be compared, but never three, unless the third is defined by the relation of the two prior, but then it is not its own thing, and only dogmatically fit into a structure it does not belong in. There is nothing in life which requires thinking that this 'rule' does not apply to. This is the reason why Daseinsanalysis is the only valid psycho-logy, and how everything else is hypothetical, by going deep into who you are, even why you are, it is impossible not to laugh at the metaphors of MBTI. Other people are rendered by your own potential personality, the disjunctive relation between you and them is absurd. There is no such thing as disintegration, all the 16 personalities are there in you already, you are not one of them in relation to other people you are them all in relation to yourself as other people, perpetually in new ways. No two people are even close to having the same idea of what this model means, but you won't even get to the part where this disagreement multiplies on itself because you are so obsessed with categories.

@Carl-Richard That in italic does not follow, nor is implied by what preceded. It is even a false dichotomy, good conversations are inherently dialectic, but because of the ambiguity which does not inhere linerarly to the precision of language such as in my post, then what you project as being a monologue here can be precisely what makes comprehension possible, if anything that post should serve as something concrete to go back on within the very confines of the dialogues that could follow it, but did not partially due to an obsession of people and their "blindspots". At the same time, as a general heuristics, the method of dialectics as you foreshadow do serve a higher purpose in this forum, than my methods. And this will not change however valid my critique is. In this sense one are wise to just let things flow with its own current, as I am not. "We need to piece it out bit by bit, tease out the points, approximate etc" Seemingly, but that would entail me deconstructing every absurdity until the days of oblivion with every single one of you, chances are I would sit here with you for fifty posts without you seeing the difference between a faculty for categorization and understanding. And the way this relates to the problem of other minds, under determination and how social cohesion instead of meaningful thinking and insight is its typical conclusion. I am rather certain that the precision of the post would actually shrink the amount of comments we would require back and forth, but surely not as in the instance when I become more interesting than it.

Logic has no limits, logic is a limit. You are limited by your logic, which you just used in an attempt to think, as am I in my. There is a realm that logic does not limit, and has nothing to do with any conversation ever had.

That this is a symptom of sophistry humors me, if it were that simple then honesty and authenticity would actually resolve this whole complication. Not only do I not want to stand out in self indulgence, but this very forum has facilitated the urge to stand less out. I am rather obsessed about the content itself, that you are not asking questions about precisely where you lose me in it, or where it seemingly brings nothing to the table, that kind of undermines the validity of your accusations, if it is so strange that a literal question can not help enlighten your misapprehension, and simple english were used, and someone did at all understand it, then however many you are, could try a little better. It is a given, that I could write it better, so I will spare you your confusion of me neglecting responsibility. I contextualize my thoughts such that when they are actually understood there entails minimal ambiguity, which goes right back to the critique in itself, it is not by accident (yet less so intention) that you do not understand me, but rather built into the means by which people on the forum understands and thinks in general. A meta problem, the latter statement is representative of the post. @thisintegrated And bless you with your myers briggs model.

@Razard86 Categories in absolute general are a concept, concepts are related and can even be structured in categories, but are in themselves rather different, as in indivisible. If you thought that this negated any of my assertions then that is also your confusion. Memories are imposed on you like the most mundane object, and do not in their imposition require for you an act of thought, but some reflection ,some consideration, some synthesis of these memories, those require concepts, this is a threshold you can only help yourself over. What this means, it would be tough to reduce further. I am sure you can find a dictionary defining concept as also outside the realm of computation and higher order from bare minimal cohesion in a given moment, or calculation, but then something must differentiate between all such and what I speak of, and whether or not we can agree to such a word we can non the less be in agreement on the difference itself, going back to my critique of how precisely this ought be possible. "You presume to be thinking when instead you put things beside each other, and accept naively that here is where they belong. Then you engage in some conversation presuming to actually learn something new when instead you have just left every category back from where you found it, and at best arbitrarily given it an obscure new element." Does this not encapsulate you? I would not know, I am not trying to essentiallize anyone in particular, but pinpoint a general trend, perhaps you'll find yourself in agreement with it once you've understood it, as I hoped to have been in aid with. There are things, and then there are their relation to each other, the most brute of humans can classify things without also considering their relation consciously while at it, it is conceptual whatever aids you in your thinking, your computation, your calculations, categories of things are not essential to this end. Edit: You may then consider a category a relation between things, the ultimate relation even, but it in itself requires minimal effort precisely because all things can as identities be divided such to be given numbers and constitutes thereby their own category, so effortlessly as this is done and so removed from the critique it is it hardly suffices consideration, though I am sure given the nature of this critique you may be inclined to.. categorize it as a concept?

They scheming together a plan to make the yet to be cockblocked girl seem more interesting, hard to get, and test the confidence/workrate of the guy. Either that or this is their literal operating system doing all their work for them, I would actually bet on the likelihood of the latter, the cause can not be pinpointed, it simply is a spontaneous "oh well lets go over here for a while, how bout that, heh", not to speak of "now I am gonna do deliberate bad job making it seem like I don't have you in my thought while being over here". They are gonna tease you, and as little as they notice what they are themselves doing are you noticing how much you love what they are doing, or she is is literally walking away from you to get away from you, there is also that. She is likely cockblocking herself more so than her friends, and you even more so, well not you in particular but. When it actually is the friend though, that is when there will be some games one simply does not win.

I am not awake and almighty, but even I understand that this thread does not aid people in an awakened direction, but makes them more deeply committed to their feeling or thinking that they do. There is something weird about how many of you react towards what Leo is saying. the man is so almighty he will become your grandma if he is not already, and now he is everyone's grandma but also there are no grandma. Let me ask you, what is on the line? If not some conviction you hold that is itself far removed from direct experience? Are you gonna have a perpetuity guru or are you actually become your own man when the enlightenment have burst your heart at last? So far as I can tell you are here still precisely because you have attachment issues, by attributing Gura with a responsibility he admittedly is a little to glad to hold onto. It is pretty amazing if in the midst of the most potent existential awakening you find some conscious entity, I bet it would not matter much then if it contradicted the shit out of your teacher. I even bet you would find your prior self rather amusing.

@Einsteinonacid Thanks for that one man, I almost have never laughed that hard by a meme. Just too good.

@lxlichael Now you are just trolling me, I got that Peter tingle.

@ZzzleepingBear Well I am glad you like it. I could be vague and open ended as is the norm, but then I have do deconstruct all the assumptions that entails, all the pompous meaningless questions. That takes effort, and pays small dividends, there is a thread in which me and some other guy argued back and forth 150 comments, or rather that I explained my every step indefinitely, though I enjoyed parts of it and it did teach me some lessons in rhetoric and possibly how to be vague at the right moment, though sacrificing meaning and even logic while at it, it did not expand my thinking much, in fact I got annoyed by the initial subject itself even though I were the one setting it's parameters. To be attention grabbing is a skillset I lack, if the chances approaches zero that I will learn something from some initial statement and that I instead have to preach which I actually hate doing, then there is nothing in it for me, and rarely even for others. I am at a point where I consider the very skillet of writing down precisely what one thinks or wonders about as more important than the curiosity itself, if not intelligence as well, I know how extreme that statement is, but I can not help it. Say you have person a and b, a is in the 5th percentile of curiosity and 95%tile of clarity, and b is opposite of that, after having spent a few too many hours reading statements on this forum, the former is option will be mine to my last day. You are not wrong, as much is evident. Edit: If this seems pedantic, dismissive etc, then I can happily whitewash myself and say that this forum is magnitudes beyond average in consciousness, obviously, so it has that going for it. Elevated consciousness and highfalutin going hand in hand.

That blows my mind. edit: every, single, step, that is.

@lxlichael Lol, should I change name to The Wise Erratic? No, how much misanthropy for instance, can be combined with wisdom?

@Someone here The understanding may be "components" themselves of us, but are themselves never made of components. Understanding is not a calculation, even though calculations may aid us to its end. The parts themselves of our calculations, those are the understanding. (which means that understanding is made of finite resources, as in adding upon itself logoritmically and not linearily as pretty much everyone believes, there are an infinite amount of fantasies to be held, these accumulates upon themselves given some some initial understanding and more often than not drowns them. The most complex theorems of math are by analogy, only representations of some understanding which itself is not complex. I seem to find it amazing how the mind creates naturally this whole thing without conscious effort at presence, the understanding is for me the appreciation/representation of what is already done, could I one day show people of any culture, any class or predicament what they have always done and known subliminally, then I guess that connect to a higher aim, as you ask for. To represent the understanding is different from reducing it, instead of saying that the radiator,fan,gpu,cpu comprises the pc and substantiates it by the composition itself I would only find accidents, I could sit here for a week and find millions of accidents of the computer, the computer would be a different idea than when I begun zooming in, but this idea would itself be irreducible to the sum of all these components if given a new such week. It is literally mystical as fuck, that there is such a thing as understanding, I am at awe to no end. The components are always and will always be retrospectively combined in order for us to feel validated in our understanding, but the success-rate one may feel in doing this is inversely proportional to the significance of the understanding itself. So instead of reducing and equating I predicate things on other things, that is, the understanding of division predicates numbers, without dividing some identity in half there could be no distribution of the relation between the two halves on a third etc. "3" is literally possible if and only if the abstraction of say "rocks" are given you in, but not from, the experience of many, and then divided in half. Then there is the set of everything, rocks, trees, humans... This is a transcendental predicate, a priori, it is not a summation of all the sets, instead it is there WITH any sets. These halves are then every rock you ever experience (even those in the background, it is even because of this distribution that they can go unnoticed in the background), the duality is not between "you and the rock" but between the rock and its manifold. There is always more to something than its predicate, the understanding is whatever is more, you do not have to think about the predicate to understand, that is only a characteristic of retrospective combination. To connect to minimal cohesion giving the possibility of human endevours, that is a top value for me, but it has nothing to do with humans in particular, it has to do with any and all possible intelligent emergent forms of consciousness, so the value regards the connection to the necessity of existence.

Erratically throwing away happiness from love, success, fame and wisdom even, in the pursuit of understanding. If happiness does not come as an accident to understanding, then I am at war with it, but only then.

x is y

It is an oxymoron, it is like saying that there can be an opinion independent opinion. Not only is non-relative morals present only in fantasy, but the very hypothesis is paradoxical. Instead, the question is why "morals" are as they are, it is first here that any universals are given meaning, namely on what there is of some thought or language which makes it appear that people are in agreement. Or some universal truth concerning the reality as opposed to content of the hearts intentionality itself such as in Emotivism, or in relation to thought thereafter, cognitivism. If me and you and every other man in some known world would express agreement on every imaginable virtue, good act or deed, even that has no bearing concerning relative character of the values held. In arguing otherwise you would also have to say that you can look trough my eyes, or scratch my back with my hands alone. When someone speak of morals in a context different from its inherent relativity, they are not speaking about morals, and are unaware of how the mind have tricked them. They are changing the goalpost as they walk along, in one instance morals are normative as what is held such that some action may be taken, in another morals are categories or descriptions of this object of concern taken for the object itself. They are confused because their whole life they thought that there were such a thing as a synthetic agreement, you and me may both agree to "murder Putin" but this is a description of a moral sentiment not the actually described, you and me may both vote for some assassination or do the act itself, but it is totally under determined whether this represents the same sentiment, the actual value itself. There is absolutely no meaningful meta ethical "middle" between saying that morals are statements concerning logical necessity/natural validity, as a mere calculation on the one hand and on the other saying that morals express emotions. and are totally relative. Just like behaviorism is not psychology neither is a theory nor a sentence of moral essence.

Would you be without directionality? Time is what you have when actuality is yet to be potential, to be what it can potentially become. That time is considered present is an accident of the emptiness of what is considered potential as inherent in whatever is actual. Presence is distributed (if we allow ourself an analogy) over "quanta" of time, due to the finitism of plural phenomenon, which means that presence is determined by various identities that inheres to each other, there is no "point" in time because presence is an indivisible manifold of finite elements trough perpetuity, we call this consciousness. A second analogy would be a ship the name of which remains despite the renewal of all its materials (given some minimal congruence), the identity of the reality of the ship DID require some materials, though the name only initially so. A ship is only "the" ship if it is the one initiated by the materials, rendering the last statement necessarily true. Potential is empty, acceleration empty, vector empty, direction empty, and requires to be filled. Thoughts are supposed to be of this character, meaningless on their own but of instrumental significance, everything is thus that without which a void would tear everything apart. Absolute cohesion, existence demanded to become or never to disappear. It could not be escaped and so we are literally inevitable, weird and peculiar as we are, yet as necessary as the atom, as light, as anything at all. It is this necessity which you may call "Now".