Reciprocality

We can not know that simultaneiety is required for consciousness to extend beyond what we call ourself (or to the "other side", which non the less is not contained in our idea of other side). It may be that simultaneity is the wrong idea, and that in some other way there is otherness.

If a distinction requires time to be thought then it is necessarily improper, as only proper distinctions are drawn from an identity both parts share, or a convergence for short. Not only must a distinction imply convergence, but there are no convergence without distinction, and therefore all proper distinctions are perfect and self evident. The question is how lost in translation those distinctions are, how improper and linearly they are drawn. This implies that convergence of proper distinctions are not imagined, but are instead foundational for imagination the way empirical sensations such as a low frequency sound are foundational for the equivalent in the inner minds ear.

When people believe that there is something particular outside their consciousness that is an empty belief, typically formed by reason. We can not know what something outside this consciousness is like, for it requires us to believe in it when we form a synthetic judgement of it constituting reason. This does not mean that there is nothing outside us, it means that if there is such a thing we must be empty of it in particular, and consequently that we can be fooled in thinking there is no such thing. Yet our existence implies that something is necessary and nothing an impossibility, in this sense whatever is beyond us is also necessarily like us. Edit: added particular first statement.

If we consider it empirical everything which is of the senses such as light or salt flavour, then what is considered is not the means by which we reference what is considered, it is rather a weak magnitude of the same thing. You may distinguish the weak and strong magnitude of light as imagination and reality, yet both are equally real in consciousness for the simple reason that they are at all in consciousness. And so you begin with asking an absurd question, unless what is real is considered more than what is in consciousness. Perhaps imagination is instead only synthetic intuition (something new and creative more than a composition of empirical magnitudes), and not merely an inner extension of outer sensation. Is it then real? Well you will probably not find an equivalent of this thought in the forest or between rocks, but if that is what is required for something to be real then what is the question even worth? There is apodictic certainty either way, and so the actual question must be whether there is an absolute mind or reality in which your own thoughts are more than your own only, for only in this way can a question of "is it real, is it truth" have meaning. Our reference of things will be an imaginary counterpart to the referenced, containing the same identity. This then can be an exposition of what imagination means, you are imagining the essence of some stone by maintaining its identity without looking at it, if the stone were originally imagined then you would have to invent a second order category for the imagination of its essence, and you would equate empirical intuition with fantasy. You should be high on drugs in doing so, you are also making language ridiculously complex if you maintain that theory. If you understood what I said here, then chances are you could render by means of this understanding some actual restricted questions worth consideration, and even understand to a fair degree a common ground on which to mutually discuss the matter not spinning the tires flat as millions did before you.

It is a necessary hypothetical conclusion to uncertainty. Intelligence implies chaos, unless intelligence is omnipresent/omnipresent. If it were omni present then nothing could follow something else. But the object which is hypothetically chaotic must always be necessarily restricted from proof, what you end up with is a mirror of your self in the object you think is chaotic, it is simply your mathematical capacity to divide an identity into more than one element, impose these elements onto phenomenal objects (typically subconsciously) assume a similar physical context for both to subsist in and see divergent effects. The thing is, everything is both in some sense similar and in some sense different, and for this reason alone chaos theory in its most typical instantiation is absurd. For they in whose mind this does not follow then my prior argument of phenomenological "reduction" are also unlikely to hit home. There is another alternative, which can hold chaos theory possible, which says that potentiality is prior to actuality, which implies that every potential outcome becomes actual, which then implies an infinite universe. This then is a chaos theory without internal contradiction, but it also is pure speculation. But since everything potential is first actual (including speculation), this infinite hypothesis itself is empty. If it can be both empty and true then there must actually be something by which it is rendered true outside oneself of which one can say nothing, and for this reason what started as a question of truth ended as one of utility, for we may have good use of pure speculation. On this however, regarding your question I have little to say, for I am no physicist nor a mathematician. Everything which is said about chaos above can be said, though articulated a little differently, about probability.

@Leo Gura Yes, something has to be indivisible, to reduce that which is indivisible is impossible and to try to do it is absurd. Which is why knowledge is immanent, and never contained in a symbolic reflection but merely is the reflection as well. To understand this is a form of rationalism, that which is indivisible goes by another name, "a priori".

You are equating chicken wing with spiciness, this is fine if you can provide evidence for it actually being so. Providing evidence for why the general term chicken wing and the general term spice is in a particular scenario referencing something together, there is absolutely no self reference problem in providing such evidence. It is also no self reference problem in the pure logical form without evidence, so I have no idea what you mean. Every word means something, we invented it for no other reason, it is impossible to invent a word without reason, so therefore there is always meaning to a word. It is even true by definition, if we consider everything a word only which references something else. What is your problem.

There is a qualitative difference between your body as you see it, hear it, smell it and feel it in itself. You have identified all these as the same thing, surely you are imagining the smell of your body when you do not smell it but only feel it or see it? What then are you doing if you neither feel it, see it, smell it, hear it or taste it? You imagine it, so then what comes into being when you feel it without seeing it, and how can all the attributes of this body be accidental, it's substance always the same if it's substance is not an imagined identity? If the substance of this body is the same with or without any of its attributes, and identities are synthesized from experience, what on earth is an illusion if it is not this? And what is imagination if the minimum by which something can be it (identity) is without an object of experience? Am I imagining my body when it has no attribute? Yes, am I imagining my body when it has an attribute? No, instead you are now imagining that this attribute is particular when it is universal. Or that this attribute is "a body". And so yes, you are imagining that you have a body, in thought you are even imagining that you have the body. But the body in empirical intuition independent of judgement and proposition, which therefore is not "body" not even a "sensation" but inexplicable, this you "have", but not even this is your true nature, and is merely a visitor. I'm fine with you calling it your body, and that you equate the empirical intuition of for instance smell with the imagined identity of body that it shares with many other such intuitions. As long as you get how everything that you consider your body is inessential to what you think it is then that is really all you need, I am not gonna take your smell away from you, though Leo might.

Every particular thing is imagined. (NB: this is not meant as a complex thought experiment, it truly is meant to be first and foremost experiential) The reason it does not matter whether we experienced it trough the senses first or whether we made it applicable to the senses after having created it is because either duration is made possible trough a unified limit. If we first think of our particular dragon and then paint it on a canvas there is nothing more here imagined than there would be if we just witnessed another persons painting of their dragon while surely here would constitute two different expressions of creativity. But there are more than particular things to our existence, if there weren't then cohesion were impossible. Consciousness is not imagined, it is actual, though it is imagined as a particular thing among the context we call our life, which again is an imagination. But there are a structure to reality which necessarily makes things (x) in consciousness of a similar "power" to it which non the less is predicated on it, without these; consciousness would be always non-dual and everything impossible. My claim is that you can experience all particular things as predicated on these a priori intuitions (x) such primarily as space. To consider the intuition of time, space and causality as equally imagined as the particular objects pertaining to it would be to chop of your own wits, except in those cases only when all distinctions disappear, so far as you desire to make sense and use language know that you can only do that because of the intuitions (x) you do not imagine right now which instead imagines you. You are imposed by these intuitions and everything you care about are rendered under them, so what are they? How many of them are there? And what seems like such an intuition but is instead dogma masquerading as it? Consider for instance red, the color you can experience in a flower and the words you use to refer to it. Does the way they relate to each other in your mind without the immediate experience of either color or word itself constitute a sensible intuition such as space, time or causality (x), and if they do then what stops us from claiming that we for instance know that our bathroom has a window or going back to the example: claiming for instance that we know our tongue is red? The answer is the most magnificent discovery of the western philosophical canon, but I am curious if anyone has a guess of their own? Or a way to make sense of it themselves?

@A Fellow Lighter Awareness is necessary, so its possibility is speculative. It makes little sense to ask whether it is possible when it already is actual, the belief that it is possible elsewhere is empty and by the way why Leo Gura the rationalist is fooled into his solipsism. What is awareness if it is not existent? And how can existence be necessary but awareness not if all there is is awareness? By your logic here there is a thing in itself, a duality to awareness. Is the thing in itself necessary? It it necessarily mystical, I can tell you that much. Edit: Many doors may open and luckily others close if you got that Gura part and were already solipsistic, though admittedly there are implications in solipsism that one should integrate. For instance, you do not know your mother or those you love, in your awareness there is no such thing as other people. The idea that there is is mystical, the object of the idea is not therefore impossible. edit2: I can tell you though, that IF your mother is independently of you then she is not at all like you think, even though her sensibilities and analytic a priori conceptual framework must be the same. The schema, emotions, sensations, synthetic conceptual framework, personality would be very different from yours and therefore impossibly thought of by you, however much you "know" her.

@A Fellow Lighter I have noticed that you have gotten to grips with much of my framework already, it clearly is not just I who were patient. So thank you I guess. You can probably laugh a good deal at how that which were seemingly incomprehensible at first now makes good sense, and even more how the inner framework of the mind in retrospect were dismissive at first (wherever that occurred in particular for you). For me there is no feeling quite like it.

The bracket usage is extensive at this point, due to my lack of English skills perhaps. But I see so many ways that all I say can be precisely what I do not say that I find them almost necessary where I spent them. Edit: I use the term "spent" for any man with some wisdom must treat his usage of brackets with an almost economic scrutiny.

@A Fellow Lighter I would consider ego (so far as it is allowed to be an object in thought and not the subject, good luck with understanding correctly what I mean here) to go in and out of consciousness trough sensible time, as an object it is therefore analogous to appearances themselves. (Your ego as such disappears thus when there is sensible time without it in it) Emotions are connected to how much of ego there is in a given moment. So far as ego is the subject, then it can not be referenced as object in a conceptual language. So far as ego as the subject disappears then sensible time also disappears, see? But this is very speculative and in some sense meaningless if language is cancelled from considering ego as subjective in the first place, as I alluded to. The foundational thinking I endevour in here is Kantian, much that I say and question here can be found in the Critique of Pure Reason, a book I have not even finished because its conclusions were obvious from its premises and vice versa. If you were to pick it up you would at this point (130 responses back/forth) probably skim trough it's contents with far more ease than most would. Kant is amazing, I think you would love him. Yeah I anticipated this interpretation of what I meant, for I interpreted it like that myself after having written it. It is not completely wrong either, I love Epistemology, I simply do not class your question under it. The wonder by which your question regarding red is enforced is a matter of identity, and of mind (yeah I know this is an extraordinary claim). So far as it has any meaning, questions of knowledge is an oxymoron, at best you can reach knowledge that way by negating other alternatives. But since we will disagree what constitutes epistemology, and that I also once thought of it as you did and could predict your interpretation, I can happily accept your definition/exposition of it. And could speak of it in your terms, in which case I do not hate epistemology either, simply find it pompous in the people who raise ""it's"" questions. (you may spot why I used (") four times there, I don't think I would). "Is this that I experience now known?" now that is an epistemic question, to which all affirmations are referential and never constitutional. (another dichotomy, sorry) The answer is yes, though as a belief it is empty, the affirmation of the question is empty, which is why it can be asked and given credit to as a belief, and why nobody ever felt satisfied by affirming it. If you know something it is excessive to affirm it, see? Epistemology must be a resting point as well as the road leading to it, I do not hate the resting point or the road. And I have sympathy for those that never goes beyond it as such.

I am curious though, and open to the idea that something I said were vacuous, for I hate sophistry and would hate it the most if I could sense it in myself. To put it this way, if what I were here doing were theater and someone could point me to it then that would lift a heavy burden of my shoulders. Then again, if it is due to my stupidity that I can not say things so that you and others can understand it, how vacuous would I then be if I simply could not do better? I am rather stupid than performative.

@Razard86 Well if you are only seeing then word play is also all there is. If I were to make everything as simple as possible I would need to write thousand word responses again and again, complex language and even syntax is introduced to minimize the effort. Not only in communication but even in thought. I have actually minimized the jargon, and have written many imprecise comments because of it. It is your responsibility to actually familiarize yourself with English words, if I introduced my own words then things would be different. Under determination is an extreme kind of problem, if anything is obvious by a mere "look" at this thread it should be that.

That it seems miraculous is a rationalistic fallacy, it is precisely because there is more than reason that there is no miracle to existence. It is a miracle when something comes from nothing without cause, but since nothing is an impossibility (or an empty potential, empty actual aswell) existence is instead necessary. What is miraculous instead is everything in existence (or everything existent), for why must it be this way and not another, the miracle is how peculiar it is not that it is. Can we know why the existent things are as they are? Are also these necessary? The answer to this is self-contained (and empty) in the question, we ask because also questions are necessary, we ask because we must. Yet there is a manifold of freedom, not in a past in which we questioned, but in a future we may decide to question. In other words, we are always new and I who am now and not yesterday is new. In speculative meta-time there may have been freedom throughout or no freedom at all, in knowledge there is no freedom but towards an unknown future there is, also this is empty.. reached the limit of language again, I can elaborate on everything but it leads to nothing. If meta-time is considered innate, then will becomes impossible. So have I speculated myself to the necessity of existence or have I not? For If I have not then the will is impossible, but since will is possible then I must have speculated myself to the necessity of existence, but if the necessity of existence is an empty belief then existence were willed by something. Such will I call god, why then did god create? Our answer will always go back to why we create, it is simply impossible to not do this self-reference. We say "love" for this reason. But we create to achieve, a contingent love therefore. Who of us create by necessity then? And is it not a god among men he/she who create simply because they can? It is curious then that it is they who are forced to create who are they who only does it because they can. And so we are back to a god who are forced to create something, but not forced to create us in particular, and with an empty belief for why he did so, but only empty from "his perspective" and never from ours. For in us there is only truth, so if there is a reason then now is the answer.

No, that is futile. That is a mere question without possible answer. I consider everything of such nature pompous, I hate it with a passion and it seems to be the death of serious philosophy wherever it travels. I should add that all such questions without possible answers are necessarily either badly stated or the answer is in the question itself, for it is impossible to wonder at something stupidly.

@A Fellow Lighter The idea of the empirical intuition is also always itself empty, we seem to agree here. We create identities synthetically a priori out of the analytic a posteriori empirical intuitions. The only way we can do this is if these empirical intuitions comes with a preconditioned map. We are extremely poor of discerning between pure concepts that are analytic a priori and the identities we have made by means of their imposition on the empirical. The capacity to distinguish these two is the essence of anti dogmatism. The inherent problem of doing this is language and how it is never itself the pure concepts but instead the very identities rendered by means of the pure concepts. So what then is induction? It comes on top of the rest, will my kitchen have all my knifes when I go there in an hour? I can only induce from past experience and the manifold identity trough which the kitchen "traveled" since last time. The identity of the kitchen is truly in opposition with itself, this is where isomorphism first comes to light, this is where we are trying to hold everything in our hands only to see how it fades away between our fingers. I consider the manifold of identities imagination (going back to how proof is empty), but given that they are all in one consciousness there is something totally cohesive about them. Minimal cohesion is sensibility, particular cohesion is concept. You induce from the empirical, I did not say that it is itself induced (in fact, I can not imagine a more absurd idea than the empirical being induced the way you exposed it). What is induced is simply its identity, but the identity is always constituted by concept. Since the empirical is not induced it can neither be imagined, and only in the empirical itself can all identities go away, something must remain when imagination goes away, this something is empty in concept, the thing in itself is empty in concept. Ego death may be minimal cohesion by sensible time and space, and non-duality may be empirical without sensibility, this is speculative. Though ego is more of a spectrum, and indeed much though far from everything I write is spectral ( a matter of magnitude), I take shortcuts for the alternative is a differential calculus.

Everything that is a posteriori must by necessity be induced from when it is taken up in memory if it has any meaning after a said experience. Science is built on these inductions.

@A Fellow Lighter I meant the former before that, so empirical intuition not sensible space, space is a priori. We are imposed by our sensations, they are never completely different from thought for they are all in consciousness but in a conceptual domain such as language it is important to distinguish between a posteriori and a priori, many would disagree what in particular constitutes as empirical intuition, for instance that of balance. For if it is [empirical intuition a posteriori] then it still it has to be rendered in accordance to conceptual a priori self correction mechanism for one to actually be able to balance with the feets, now sure one could label the whole thing as "instinctual", but I am concerned with avoiding all types of inductive fallacies, which is everywhere in modern science. Just like we could never reach mathematical analytical concepts (flatness, triangle, roundness, qube, etc) by mere induction, we can neither reach balance as a concept by such induction, for then we would have to induce in order to balance. What makes this vague is that we balance automatically, the synthesis of empirical intuition a posteriori constituted as feet and a priori balance is necessary for us to walk, our subconscious synthesize these things like so much else for us, yet what I have reached is a place where this synthesis has come conscious. Everything the subconscious mind does is inherently vague, and even worse it is an empty belief that there is such a thing as the subconscious. The only inductive thing is here language itself (no, actually the ground is inductive also if we were not to look at it), though we go full circle (back to my original post) if we now question how it is possible for us to make identities by induction constituting memories which masquerades as an a priori concept itself. That we can do this effortlessly is the reason people actually believes that language is a "true reference" to the conceptual, and that some may find morals "objective". (though the latter goes deeper than language itself), among other dogmatic beliefs many holds. I will answer the other comments later.

When I say that existence is necessary, I point towards the eternity of ideal (former) substance, but as an expression this must always be a mere belief, conceptually it is not true. It is self evident that appearances as substance are never totally out of existence (thereby eternal in meta time), almost every rationalist Leibniz, Spinoza, Langan, Kant, Aristotles among others knows this, but every attempt at proving it is futile. (most of these tried and failed, some of them were dogmatic and thought that that the appearance were matter itself).

To find an exact way to put this particular thought is a hassle. I am not married to any expression.

@A Fellow Lighter All beliefs says that there is something more than consciousness presently (that is their whole function, the idea that there is something more is always empty for no other reason then that one tries to escape truth by making truth subject to something in opposition to itself. Proof is rendered under truth, but truth is never proven, belief is never proven though instead the identity of Australia changes form once one travels there. Belief is empty of proof. and once Australia is seen nothing were really proven, only truth immanent. Yet thought and communication seems to bid itself to the idea of provability spontaneously, so we are better of "proving" things along our way, if we are to engage in communication WE BETTER be rationalists in conduct, there is indeed no other way so we can choose so accept ourself or not accept ourself in this way. Our cognition is trying to escape something, constantly yet is bound to do so. Just like we can speculate consciousness itself doing in escaping the thing in itself. It is hard for me to pin down what you hear mean by "substance", then again I don't know if we would find agreement on what imperceptible, imagination, function, distinction, operation and expression really means. Yet I intuit something in your expression above beyond my own preconceived thoughts, though if I were to flesh it out there would be too much association or imprecision, and to little rigor to be worth it. Substance (x) has two general different meanings, one whereby something x lasts forever and of which we are as egos a mere visitors yet as consciousness its creator. And the other whereby x is a particular in a manifold of the thing in itself, in opposition to consciousness yet rendered conceptually by means of consciousness. The former is idealism the latter physicalism. Substance is knowable in the former and believable in the latter, the latter is absurd for it points to the object of its belief as filled when it is empty. It is not empty of immanent truth, but of proof. While the former is imminently true, and impossibly proven. Yet it will never be true as a synthetic proposition, for it requires proof to be such.

@Breakingthewall By this logic there is only one true thing of everything, only one true man, only one true form of water, only one true guru, only one true thought, only one true planet. (not one in quantity, but one subset of a set) Everything can be essentialized, not Alpha more than animal. Alpha is better considered for this reason alone, as itself something less and more, something on a scale. By your logic there is also only one beta, and everything else is alpha.

@A Fellow Lighter Rational beliefs are all empty in themselves, and serve only a purpose in sensible causation. I believe Australia is a land of Sydney to which I can also travel, but I know no such thing. The belief is rational, yet empty itself, and only filled to the extent time brings about its proof in space, it can only do that by causation. But as soon as the belief is proven then it is no longer belief and changes form to truth, all belief is therefore in itself a matter of ethics. Yet truth is never negated, such that all beliefs are constituted by truth. To actually understand all this, further distinctions is necessarily made, but when "all is imagination" is the only lens trough which everything is seen, these distinctions becomes fantastical. By which point I argue one ought to stop speaking, find a cave and tend to nothing.