Reciprocality

@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.

@Vynce The flatness of your roof is rendered in approximation to the innate concept of perfect flatness, for no other reason would you ever intuit both imperfect and perfect flatness under the same class of "flatness". You walk towards the kitchen and automatically you take the shortest route, and if you don't then that is because there is a point b between a and c, the actual line will never be perfect, but your conceptual means of navigation is. It is hard to "prove" it, actually it can't be proven except for in him who sees it himself. It is correct that time, space and causality can not be experienced, that is my whole point. They are that upon which experience is contingent, they are only "experienced" as that which occurs in them, which means that they are never themselves experienced. Now you can define experience such that time, space and causality is experienced, this only means that they are experienced trough that which they render, a posteriori knowledge (sensation). But for the sake of first order logic it is better and more precise not to consider sensibilities themselves as experience, for in that matter there would be nothing other than consciousness which makes intelligibility. At which point everything is inductive, and nothing innate. Which again means that there would be no perceived difference between anything and thereby consciousness itself impossible, identity would be impossible, cohesion impossible. Your left thumb requires empirical intuition such as color to be experienced, but it also requires the sensible intuition of space and time to be experienced, this is of course self evident. But what is less obvious is that it also requires mathematical constructs such as roundness to be experienced. Edit: the particular shape of the thumb is not innate, but that by which the shape is possible is. Edit: it is also imprecise to call the purely mathematical concepts "constructs" as they are extremely different to the conclusions which can be drawn from the them, these however, are more like constructs. These two classes have been identified as analytic (the concepts) and synthetic (the constructs rendered by means of the pure concepts).

Perhaps not look in the mirror, there is a chance I would find you ugly but that would have minimal effect on what I thought of you. There is an even higher chance that someone out there would find you pretty, and many may find you neither ugly or pretty. The mirror is probably a curse on most of us, we are meant to discover ourself without knowing with extreme precision how we look, it is actually rather weird in a sense to have any idea of our own face whether we like or dislike what we see, we definitely do not feel like it is us the way we feel like our body is ours, I believe this is a primary cause for the obsession wherever it occurs. And why women objectify their own face like it were a painting, as equally distant from themselves. It is the most essential thing about our appearance yet so very different from our inner sense, our actual essence. I would say there is an almost accidental relation between the two.

It is necessary because negation is something we are imagining right now, but which always goes away and which has no claim in opposition to it, even though we think that it has. We can not imagine away existence, negation simply will not remove it. Negation has a meaning to everything conceptual but not that which transcends all concept, existence. Knowledge, existence, information, consciousness, experience, awareness, absolute identity, presence. All these have in common that nothing negates them, that their negation is an invention to makes synthetic sense of them.

The identity of us which never changes is our necessity, not our ego but that of us which had to be. That we exist is that of us which had to be, not us as our ego but us as "something at all" or "something opposed to nothing". You can surely see that this is recursive, and so far as language is concerned what I am pointing towards could continue in its recursive nature forever. Opposed does not mean anything here of course, since we speak of precisely the thing which has no opposite. It only seems that it has an opposite, but this thing is conceptual negation masquerading as something it is not.

@A Fellow Lighter Absolutely, things in themselves have not been proven. "matter" have only been proven as it relates to our mind, but that it is different to our mind has not been proven.

@A Fellow Lighter I would definitely propose that babies conceptualize, it is the only way for them to navigate. Their intelligence is first and foremost sensible, not fantastical. Which means they render the empirical intuitions such as wetness or warmness or the objects of imagination such as chair or tree from a manifold of mathematical concepts, only in this way can they ever hope to trespass some territory. There is only one cognitive alternative, which says that all babies does is learn from experience itself, this is an inductive fallacy. We have already gone trough this, there can not be induction all the way down. Flatness is a proof of that, a triangle is a proof of that. Every analytic mathematical concept is a proof of that. Fantastical intelligence is synthetic, it creates something original trough the concepts that are innate, and the control of their body.

@Vynce Space, time and causality, without these there would be no reciprocity commenting here. These were called forms of sensible intuition by Kant. Then there are thing like flatness, roundness, triangle, etc.. all these are never experienced in the senses themselves, yet that which happens in sensation can seem quite flat. If it were no such a priori mathematical concept of for instance the perfect line between starting point and destination or flat surface then we would use excessive energy to walk our path, these mathematical creations are minimal. Logic takes the form of cohesion in direct consciousness, there is a reason nothing ever really seems "off", it is because we make everything cohesive, if we did not then we could neither have a singular consciousness. Even when we can not solve a problem it unfolds in perfect cohesion, the same goes for all paradoxes. The 'sketch maps' are like our schema.

So to be more precise, the scientific proposition regarding lets say the reaction of sun and water becoming steam is only causally connected as we experience it, but never in the paper (imagination) itself. But in the experience you can know with certainty that causation occured, but not what caused what. but the reason you can not know what caused what is not because you can imagine a different cause to the effect, but rather that it does not present itself to you by necessity. So I were a little to eager in saying that you can know that a causes b in particular, if it seems that is what I meant, only that a causes b in absolute generality, as in the past and future, to the exclusion of c, d etc.

@Consilience That is a very good question, how can we in a scientific experiment know that it weren't something completely different than a which caused b? If we can not even rely on the induction of similar experiments?. It is because causation is not what we think it is, instead of being something out there in a physical world it is instead a sensibility of our own minds. Causation is not subject to judgement, but instead immanent and necessary trough us. If it were not then nothing could keep us cohesive trough space and time. We are rendered by causation itself, and it in turn can be considered in a judgement or proposition regarding a and b, but a and b can never both be their causation and our judgement of them at the same time. Though I recognize this is merely an outline, and not necessarily enough to persuade you. So ask or criticize if there is something you disagree with. Space and time, in turn, is also of the mind.

@DnoReally Congrats, this is the most construct aware comment (except mine of course) of this whole thread. Alpha males are as real as water, they point to something in a sensible world.

The territory is rendered under the some maps, which is the only reason you can actually make maps. The territory shares an identity with the maps they are rendered under, the the maps which sketches out that territory shares an identity with both. Some maps are innate, a priori, without them you would be insane. The sketch-map is also the territory itself, everything is the territory. This is another way of saying that all roads leads to Rome, or that existence is holonistic, or that inteligence is firstly sensible then it is fantastical. The scetchmap is fantastical, the innate map is sensible.

The absolute necessity of existence, transcends all in us. And is as such like a wavelength which goes trough us. That there were something and not nothing, is our absolute identity.

Necessity can take two forms, it can be absolute and relative. Existence is absolutely necessary, but sensibility is only relatively necessary, it is only necessary in us for us to operate.