Reciprocality

This globe fits billions of people, to what end is it good that everyone is interconnected, is it sustainable? If humans never even had the option to intermingle between cultures that would probably be for the best, in which case we would have far less power, in which case we would have far inferior technology, evolve in ourself and not so much as an instrument to something else, be far less nihilistic by how we now perceive ourself proportional to how much bigger humanity is than us, and thereby how little effect we have on otherness. In the short time frame in which we virtue signal our minimal care for anything that extends beyond ourself just a little we will surely open our heart for some multiculturalism, but would it be good in the end? It is too late to put the brakes on global economy, for this reason we are destined to end with a global power, if such a power were mono cultural then I find it hard to see how it would not end up exploitative. Is multiculturalism bad? .. If it is a human conclusion, its outcomes distributes power far more equally than its alternatives and humans end up capable of moving beyond apathy and nihilism and the anarchy which follows then I would consider it an instrumental good, our next step in cultural evolution will be externally antithetical and confrontational, that is when we have evolved beyond our revisionist postmodern internal antithesis phase. At a cosmological scale I think there are potentials hidden in this universe that only a sustainable multicultural synergistic global power can reach and make good use of, I think there is just as much something out there in a possible future that pulls us towards some pretty neat actualization, as there are events of the past that has pushed us where we are.

I have not listened to this video but I will say what I think anyway, if you give stat X their context x and give some stat Y some context y then you will necessarily at some point begin seeing nothing short of bifurcation like on a tree if it were portrayed on a fancy 2d diagram. meta statistics would be emergent by mere law of scarcity. the question is how well we can hypothesize or predict how it intersects before it does, and thereby define its rules instead of exposing them.

@JuliusCaesar I must add though that it is less because of the logical range of the word lying that it would be coping to spy in general, and more so the logical range of coping which makes spying to cope. It would be reasonably implied by my original statement that the deceptive nature primarily concerns oneself, and not particular kinds of foes.

It is destructive for the job, which could be destructive on the self. Often and in the long run I think honesty would not be self destructive, which non the less is so shortly after. If your question are following your own line of reasoning and responds adequately to my statement it would be to have the job as a spy to begin with which were the coping mechanism, in which case I believe if one were to dig that yes coping there would often be at the bottom, as the statement implies. In this sense they would do what is necessary to cope, and so indirectly yes, though merely in general.

@JuliusCaesar Now this is an analytic statement, it is true necessarily and not much of a question for this reason. This though I can not make sense of. That would be a coping mechanism, especially if it is done as you say "deliberately". Well that would be a good idea, especially if the act contained deceptive word salad.

Arrival, Interstellar, Mr Nobody, Inception, Spider Man No Way Home, Marvel Endgame, Harry Potter Prisoner from Azkaban, Passenger, Wall-E and The Prestige. All these except HP are Sci-fi, most are Time Themed and if you are like me you enjoy the hundred of ways everything becomes absurd as soon as time is interfered with. Most of these movies also include VERY hard moral or life changing dilemmas.

It is emergent on top of something beyond reason, a mystical independent thing we can not say anything of other than in negative terms. When something is emergent of something else it is impossible to find the emergence in that by which it is emergent of, and so you can at best expose the emergence itself retrospectively but never in particulars, only in universals. And here experience must therefore be the only possible answer to the how, which means there is no how. Retrospectively there is a clear logic to the how in the mere sense that some things would be impossible in mind without other things in mind, such as time and space is necessary for causation, or that causation is necessary for self, or that self is necessary for youtube. Simply put.

Good job, lets disagree on words, avoid entertaining the alternative definition, get stuck in semantics and be happily stubborn. Why not, what are words

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.