Reciprocality

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.

You can speak of imagination the ways you want to, but it will not change how without the sensibility of space there would be no comment. This is a contingency. I do not consider things that are necessary imagined, but so do you. This is hilarious, but fine by me.

It transcends the box by which it can be referred, there is no more awareness in the concept of it then there is outside the concept of it. Though knowledge can take the form of a priori sensibility, or mathematics a priori. Awareness transcends all these, it is present also when they are absent in us.

I have no idea what this comes from, or how it connects to that in quotation which you responded to. There is not much to learn about consciousness itself, but there are many ways to think of it. There are many modalities to it, if you will. But nothing to learn.

@A Fellow Lighter Well you go by a different username than me, if there were no opposite of us both then there were also no reason for us to be at all different. It is imprecise to call it completely different, at least for now. And it does not matter to my point.

On the contrary, causation is that which connects now and now, yesterday and tomorrow. The problem is finding scientifically what follows something else. You can always know that a causes b, but never if something similar will occur again. Hume got it almost right, but he did not understand in his essays on causation how identity had fooled him. What is hard is to determine if a were a part of the chain of events which resulted in b scientifically, this can only be induced. But the connection itself between that which were the chain is necessary, however fooled we are by the number of times we got the chain itself wrong. In another way, without causation there would be nothing intelligible. Everything would float around in time and space without b occurring after a. the alphabet would change all the time, there would be nobody to sense time.

@A Fellow Lighter There are many proofs in mathematical science which sees beyond the natural world which gets proven in it later, some such mathematical proofs can not be proven or discovered in measurement. The idea of an independent existence is just like those proofs that never gets measured, if you want to be rational you better believe in an independent thing in itself that is composed of parts you do not know in themselves but have (maybe) only glimpses of. If knowledge is your only concern then this independent entity is outside your scope so far as I know, but if you want to have beliefs then it is far more justified to believe in a necessary entity which requires your consciousness at its right time, than to believe in a physical chaos, or believe that Australia can be vacated to.

@A Fellow Lighter The only rational answer to the above is that there is such a thing as something independent of us, which itself is composed of many parts of which we know nothing about. It is only truth if reason has any validity, and to me it does. But you do not have to agree. But if you do not agree then stop arguing, there is nothing to argue about thereby.

I understand what your problem is, the thing is, I can easily say that awareness is all there is. I don't need to justify that I am aware, people with stupid thoughts and brilliant thoughts are all aware, but I am interested in also how the things in awareness unfold as they do. What is contingent on what. This does not negate my existence, it makes it approachable conceptually. Reason can well conducted and badly conducted, I intend to conduct it greatly. All there is is consciousness, and my rationalism has an idea of something else, a dualism. I believe but do not know that the thing in itself is real, but nothing makes much sense if it is not. The real questions begins when we see how you are completely different from me, and that if the opposite of us both are nothing then how the hell can we be different?

@A Fellow Lighter Well, if you will prove this you must also show me how sensibile time and space disappears and never returns. So you must really kill me, if what you would like to prove could be possible. And don't forget causality.

IF awareness can be void of content, or is considered that which is present throughout all content. I really don't know, we can only refer back to it trough reason, and speculate about it trough reason. So the question is inherently of reason, though yet perhaps unanswerable. So if your question can be affirmed it must actually be affirmed trough the acceptance that the question does not make sense, and that something is true of which the question is merely an effect, or an echo.

@A Fellow Lighter I may easily get you to agree that knowledge is information only, if you were to present me with how on earth you can know something other than information itself, or naive information if you will. That which says that information is also this other thing, is a belief and not knowledge the way it is presented. Which is a way of saying that the claim "my grass outside is green" is a belief and not something that you know unless you take a peak at it and propose it as you do so. It is entirely inductive if you do not actually see the grass, and therefore not known. You require a funny and UNDER DETERMINED theory if you regard the claim in the proposition as knowledge. Though the proposition itself is known.