Reciprocality

@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.

@r0ckyreed At will, not in general but in particular when it is the most. To let go of it, having no need to defend anything there and then. It is by the ego's will I desire this now, but there and then it is if at all possible something else. Will would here be something negative in the sense of negation, it would instead of giving life to something take the life of something away. In general I desire very much to have an ego, for otherwise there would be no tomorrow, nothing cohesive in thought. Edit (yes I wrote this primarily to myself, but it is a mere extension of the above): Since all that is forced comes with an equal anti-force, an equal backlash, the will for this negation has an accidental relation to its hypothesis when come actual. For if come actual this negation is miraculous, not in itself but in relation to everything else. And if it is not miraculous then its direction is, this direction then is an anti force to the negation yet a force to something else. This miraculous direction I know nothing of, and is empty like the future itself. It is indeed the future, but a subset of it which comes by means of something which itself is presently empty. In other words: this particular negation (and all like such) is not found by reason. You can only extrapolate from the desire, its object is itself the ego and therefore you were right to ask "whose will".

If you try to avoid your natural urge to judge people in general, and succeed to some extent at diminishing this part of yourself, then is it not likely you will fear other people's judgement of you more in general? Given that you know how hard it were to get over the threshold yourself, you surely wont expect many others to be as determined as you once were. Or do you think that while people will judge you just like they would before that your own lessened urge itself by consequence makes you less fearful or obsessive with others judgement, or are you simply free from this burden already?

Yess, proceed with vagueness, good on you. The question is not if whether we allow ourself to label the Jews chosen or superior, but what we ought to do with the substance to which the label is owed. Well, if religion is a sub-set of this substance, then at some point it ought be diminished in its fantastical, speculative and dogmatic superstitions. So that something can relate to it the way the Jews intelligence relates to non-jew intelligence. In the western world this something goes commonly by the labels "secularism", "humanism" or "democracy" among others.

"I was only wondering if you had meant that to be an alternative for the duality of “sensible intuition”" Intuition can be of the sensibilities or empirical, color is an empirical intuition, space time and causality is a sensible intuition, the latter is a priori the former is a posteriori. space is a form of a priori sensible intuition. I did not mean that it were an alternative, no.

Yes, the ego I consider to be imagined by the minimal impositions in consciousness, the sensibilities. Whatever appears by means of these sensibilities can strengthen the ego, lets say in a fight or in a debate, but since the ego is always there when the sensibilities are there (at least for me) I consider it imagined by them, in turn it is the ego which can convey this message to you. When space, time and causation disappears the ego goes away, but when there is only these things in awareness (no appearance or thought rendered by means of them) the ego is non the less minimal.

@A Fellow Lighter In a day to day life consciousness will be all there is for us, the idea of the thing in itself is a rational idea and will always collapse in pure awareness. The duality therefore, is mystical. It collapses absolutely. But it is an honest wonder at how you and me can be two peculiar and particular modes of consciousness, if there is no duality to which we are both in opposition then the belief that there is a reason we are different is necessary an appeal to one of two different formulations of a god, either one who is willing from nothing or willing from a higher imposition. If it is the latter then it simply makes possible things actual, if it is the former then it makes actual things from "nothing". Both of these has to be pantheistic and monotheistic. If something is willing from nothing then it can will itself away, our existence is a proof of this being impossible. (there is one speculative formulation of this evidence and one certain formulation of this proof, the one in which substances or appearances in consciousness are necessary (speculative) the other whereby existence is necessary (certain)) I believe we are rendered necessary by our opposition to the thing in itself, I believe unconscious organisms is an absolute impossibility. But again, I am not too interested in my beliefs, I know very well why they are as they are and at all, but it is the knowledge by which they are built I am primarily concerned with explicating, you are right however that my patience has dropped, I will not copy paste my own comments, find what you look for, there is a lot there. The duality between sensibility and consciousness is conceptual, never perfect. I have stated 10 times that consciousness transcends everything that is of us. But that does not make the sensibility of space/time, causation itself conceptual, though every possible instantiation of it in thought and in language is.

@Michael Jackson You are imposed by an idea of causation, the idea does not sustain that something always follows something else, therefore there is something prior to the idea, namely that something follows something else. All this says little about the manifold of hypothetical causes to an actual effect b and neither which in the manifold were in the causal chain in what is referd to the "physical" world, only that whatever it were which constituted the chain were causal. In a scientific experiment this can always be under determined, but in mind everything follows everything else including the scientific experiment. If it did not then you would not be here to see it, to call causation an illusion is absurd not because we can always under-determine the causal chain in the "outer sense" but because whatever the chain is we were sensible to its effect and some world prior to it. That you were sensible to some world prior to it, whether that is just a memory and not itself actual may be were you disagree, but here it is indeed convenient to believe in substances that never goes away in something called meta time. Not substances of a physical world in itself but of its appearances in mind, for this you may require to be rational. If something can be at all then it must be forever. If x is possible then x is actual. It is impossible to speak of possible but non-actual things what concerns the past, for if you do then you impose a will onto it. How can the past be impossible when it is the most possible thing? (memory) If the past is possible because of memory then it is actual because everything possible must have been.

@A Fellow Lighter No, I'm done repeating myself.

@Michael Jackson What I mean by always is that there is nothing other than causation from a to b, and also nothing else than a and b in the meeting point of presence. I made this clear above, it is not like a must be the cause of b out of a manifold a-z, when it comes to a chain of events in the 'outer sense' you can only induce what caused what out a given manifold, by means of memory of merely similar events. Or speculate by reason. But in inner sense you can always know that causation makes a, b. Without causation there would be nothing of you. Causation is not only knowable, but it is impossible not to know it and also write on a keyboard. A and B, to which there is no third is past and future in the way I meant it, it is as A and B every hypothetical causal chain takes form when actual. But out of a manifold of hypothetical causes it is not necessary the one which seems like it that is the actual cause, which one one would be forgiven for thinking I meant. The illusion is thinking you know that causation occurs in something that is independent of consciousness, causation itself in you is necessary and indisputable, to claim that it does not exist is to prove that it does.

Without x as the sensible intuitions there would never be a belief of the independence of matter, something which unfolds by means of the very sensibility. But the idea that the matter is a part of a duality of two opposite modes of existence is a different claim than in quotation, though dependent on the substance of the quotation. The belief that the experience of this matter is the matter itself is also a duality, but this is a materlialism which thinks that the other part of the duality can be the experience itself, or very similar to it. You do not have to be, and most are not, meta cognizant of how these sensibilities are necessary for dualism to actually believe in dualism.

And I think the territory is muddied between these, but I do not deny that for instance the sucking of a moms breast may be without the aid of concept, but it definitely is with the "aid" of sensible time, space and causality. Everything is connected least in the sense of a singular consciousness, but whether bodily instinct in a baby and concept also has connections seems very speculative but I must concede many instances where they definitely do. At the same time, we are breaching the realm of science itself, and it would probably be better if someone with expertise said something particular about it instead of me speaking in general.

To turn the ego completely away at will.