Reciprocality

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.

If anything means such things as we are familiar with then you are correct and correct by definition. But the thing in itself, eternal substances of meta-time, metatime, these are also "anything" and are postulated as being necessary. You do not know if these things are contingent on you knowing of their possibility, these things (if they are) are precicely not contingent on you knowing them. They are not what they are as they are to us, if they are at all. We do not know if they are at all, to us they are only reason extended. To even hypothesize about them is reason itself, a brilliant mind can find them necessary but accept how they are never his thought about them, and speak therefore about them only in negative terms. Mystical. But just like non-duality, if you do not get it, there is absolutely nothing substantive here said. But to me, the idea of something on the other side, something like matter that is opposite to me and never how it seems, which non the less requires me to be. This boggles me to no end, I find it more spectacular than all our pity ideas of god. More profound, more extreme, more ridiculous indeed.

There is only reason to know you exist, because negation of that knowledge is impossible. You have confirmed this yourself "This is what I find to be an impossibility: the absence of knowledge. " You have definitely negated affirmation of truth if you think the question of whether you exist or not has any meaning, but my point were not about you. But you have not negated truth, that you can't do that were kind of my whole point.

"This is what I find to be an impossibility: the absence of knowledge. " "negation is an invention." "nothing is an impossibility" "something is a necessity" @A Fellow Lighter These all means the same thing, knowledge is the only thing that is possible, consciousness and knowledge is the same thing considered in opposite ways. Yet knowledge can take the form of belief in consciousness, belief is a rational invention which says that z can be both q and c even though both q and c are different. A belief that holds matter to be both particle and wave, a belief which says that my bathroom is both out there somewhere for me to walk in as well as the knowledge of it when I actually walk there, and the common synthetic identity the belief and the a posteriori knowledge share. Even the belief is knowledge, all that happens is that things changes identity. This is an apodictic proposition, that all we speak of is reducible to identity and that they change form I know with certainty, whether or not everything we speak about take a different form in a different realm. I do not ascribe to anything in pretty much everything I have written in this thread, I am totally unaware of something other than cohesion. This is because of the sensibilities we have in the first place. It's opposite can therefore only have a hypothetical negation. That these sensibilities are called intuitive is because of how just like all other intuitions they are imposed on "you" by nature, they simply appear before you outside of your power, all intuitions have this property. In fact, they are that trough which you have any power at all. For something to be an intuition there may be required also that it combines different things into a singular unit of measurement or identity, such as my laptop and phone are intuited as units of technology from intuition. Some intuitions are pure, and hinges on no intuition outside them. These are that which makes phone and laptop identities in time and space. a1 If you mean here that consciousness is possible outside sensible intuition, I allow that possibility, no problem. This renders the mechanisms behind things mystical, but not its necessity. At the same time, I would rather define knowledge as that in consciosuness which is not just non-duality without anything in it, but rather everything else in consciousness and therefore at present. a2 But if you mean to define reason as something outside the sensibilities (though dependent on them) but rather of the logical range itself, by which you propose knowledge being possible without then I would still hesitate, because the mutual relationship with everything in cognition or simply being is that upon which we can even speculate about these internal contingencies. For this reason the proposition "knowledge without reason is possible" is meaningless, as its only possible affirmation falls outside your consciousness. And if indeed you are correct about knowledge being present without reason at some point, then it is actual not merely possible and speculative. If it is actual then what is it? Is it sensation? Do we ever have sensation (a posteriori knowledge) void of mathematical/logical concepts? I can not think of any. My heart beats trough these concepts, my lungs breathes trough these concepts, my eyes sees trough them, my hunger does. That a toothache comes with related memories, that it comes at intervals or is inherently different in a logical range from headache, is that all outside reason? Nope. Does my hunger not take spatial presence in my inner spatio-mathematical mind? Not pure sensible space itself, but a determination of WHERE in it. Can a primitive animal have any sensation void of reason? That is a question, perhaps. Is our determination of spatial relation of hunger a necessity? would you have hunger if you never determined where you had it? Now these are actual meaningful questions, that instead of being easily responded to with certainty must be thought about a lot. You could further qualify them by saying that if it were possible to have these sensations without reason then the sensations would be felt entirely different or not at all, so far as reason is a priori concept only then I would go with the former, if it includes a priori sensible intuitions I would say that sensation ( a posteriori knowledge) would be completely impossible without it. This and and why it is so I have repeated extensively.

"See, one may argue there is no reason at all you know you exist," This is impossible, negation is an invention. Though it is possible as an absurd undertaking. "But go on, what would be the science? And how would it manage to not be as silly as attempting this with philosophy?" In particular it would be neuroscience, destroy the brain and there is little reason to believe there will be more of your existence. Though epistemically all things in science confirms your existence equally, going back to how your existence is not synthesized propositionally. Though Hegel and Whitehead may argue about that. I will not get into that here. Send me a message if this is of interest though.

What am I missing? @A Fellow Lighter That we know that everything with any content or which can be represented in thought occurs in consciousness. Or disjunctively because without consciousness every such thing disappears, If you get knocked down then for the 10 minutes you were gone there were things occurring that you did not witness. That there were such things occuring is a judgement, not knowledge though it may be true. I call it consciousness that which is, again. The sensibility of space that I referred to as X is in consciousness, so far as this is language it must be inferred as a judgement, but so far as you INTUITS its contents, so far as you in your own awareness know what is here meant, it is truth and obvious.

@A Fellow Lighter My thinking gets too dry and repetitive when instead of being proactive in its own questions and solution it is reactive towards already chewed questions. You are certainly a skeptic towards something, though it is not even clear that it is to the possibility of truth, only truthful judgements. "most screens are 9 by 16 inches" is a synthetic judgement/proposition, I would agree with it though hardly know it, it would even be unclear if I knew it if someone else measured all the screens on the planet, nay if I measured them all myself I would not even know, for I could hardly measure them all at once. And even if I did I could not know that screens were a Human invention only, no not even know that it were a human invention at ALL. Though I know what the proposition means, on this there is no real dispute. It seems you have confounded synthetic judgements such as above with a priori knowability. I know of nothing besides sensations and feelings of and in my body, concepts of intellect and sensibility in terms of which both are connected. I know they are connected because without the sensibility of causation there were nothing upon which for anticipations of experience to form, these anticipations occurs mathematically or conceptually in a language of simple and complex logic every minute of the day, yet they do so by means also of feelings and sensations of the body. If I were not sensible to time or space I had no direction in which to think or move, the sensibility of causation is that which unifies both, this unification occurs automatically or analytically and requires no formed judgement, thus are a priori truth. (as nothing is required to do for one to know it, it is true "before" judgement.)

While all this is fine and indeed a good method, it does not make it less ridiculous that instead of focusing on integrating differences concerning the matter we discuss you instead try to correct my own reflection on my own life. Of which there is also ridiculously little in common with this response above which you must have thought there being in writing it in relation to it. Edit: So far as you did not mean to correct this reflection, you would be entirely in your right making cohesion of or ideas. Though I must be forgiven for finding it hard to believe that you care for cohesion when you are oblivious how cohesion is truth.

@A Fellow Lighter Chaos is an a priori concept under which we primarily label such things in a physical or dynamical universe we do not understand how works, we also call such things "probabilistic". The reason we call an effect A so or so probable is from what we call induction, we can only speculate regarding somethings probability from a given experience of a like thing in a given moment of time, from where we have written down certain data-points regarding it and are in a later moment in time considering under the same identity as we now experiment with something new. We can also do this mathematically, which becomes even more vague than experiments concerning probability and chaos. Chaos and probability so far as they refer to some ontological predicate and not the status of a given knowledge or a lack thereof must for it's meaning or provability be conducted scientifically in two completely similar yet differently located universes. We know not how to do this. Do I believe in physical probability, physical chance, chaos? I do not think we have any idea what we are talking about in even asking the question, regarding the physical in itself I only believe that it has differences within itself and that everything else concerning what we think is it concerns instead ourself. These differences and whatever they constitute as I have said repeatedly, I know nothing about, though natural science and therefore human cognition could concern the thing in itself. I simply do not know. "I know that what sits in front of me now is something I call a screen." How do you know this? Well, I witnessed it being called a screen, I call that which witnessed it me. It is me that which witness the screen because "me" is that which this witness is called. This is circular language, language in itself is supposed to be circular under its own set of rules, if language were not circular then you were conducting an absurd experiment by means of it. Even our thoughts that language represent is meant to be circular in a similar way. Though there are two types of circularity, the one in which the conclusion is the premise itself and the one in which both conclusion and premise defines the other. To have a non-circular language would be about equally absurd as having a a conclusion equal to a singular premise among several premises. We know the rules of language because we decide them, as in constituting "by definition". We call the object a screen because "screen" is a class of things under which the object is automatically or manually recognized as, and we understand the class of things by means of the objects we decide to call a screen from the beginning. We do NOT need to remember the first time we learned what constitutes a screen in order for us to call it such. We can also call it whatever we like, it is whatever we call it. Though it (object) is in some sense never equal to what it is called, yet equal in the sense that they share an Identity. "know the lamp behind me shares in some way the same identity with the other lamp behind me, though in another way it does not share the same identity" How do you know this? Good question, I first saw one lamp and made an identity out of it and then saw the other, for the identity of the other there were nothing required other than dividing the identity of the first in two, thereby adding by means of this division a second object, this occurs automatically because of the sensation that are imposed upon me. This is how quantity works concerning the world and how we came to discover number theory. Number theory is then again defined quadratically and qubically, as without our a priori concepts of spatial dimensions we would not make numbers possible, everything is indeed connected in beautiful ways. If however it is possible to create a number theory without these particular a priori concepts then that would mean they converge synthetically and not analytically. Though at this point I must actually differentiate between types of synthesis and analysis, I do not have vocabulary for that and would maybe get banned if I begun with variables again. The reason it is hard to know in which way they are connected goes back to the question concerning how identities masquerades as pure a priori concepts or sensibilities. "know many things, I also know how I came to know many things. Though most I thought I knew were dogmatic and pure belief." Great, but how do you know? I have written about 20 comments on this, you want me to refer to the comments I already wrote to you because you did not get them? Well I won't unless you articulate something in particular about them that you do not understand. From this point onward the questions must be particular and intelligent, thus showing a common understanding, if they are not written discursively or problematically there is little for you to learn from the answers.

There are the thinkers of stage orange, and then there are the followers of stage orange. There are the thinkers of stage yellow, and there are the followers of stage yellow. There are even the thinkers from pre-orange stages that are far more sophisticated, deliberate, right or even wise than most followers of any stage that transcended theirs. Not without dispute I would claim that stage orange is the easiest in which for a follower to become a thinker, yet the hardest to transcend in thought. The followers of stage orange are as removed from what matters in life as its thinkers are from truth, which is why the followers watch TV, consume news or "debate" and the thinkers preach "objective science". So far as the scientists are aware of the problems of identity, language, probability, under determination or posses some meta-cognition in general by which measure we name them "yellow", thus transcended reducibility, object certainty or equivocation or even equation completely. For these logic is imminent, impending, living or synthetic, not objective or analytic. For these this distinction is most crucial. Followers of the orange state have lost or are losing, as I will have you suggesting, their life force, as that which there is most of everywhere (x) is for them the real things while themselves are merely dreams in it (x). They call x "Matter".

Most people who experience non duality actually do not need to create an identity out of it, and do not need to stand by means of that identity in reaction towards anything and especially not common culture. It is your religion or philosophy of non-duality he do not care for, nor have much considerations of, which speaks very little of the kinds of conscious experiences he have had. And yes, Roe Jogan is a silly guy, a little bit of everything, a good interviewer half of the time and a laughing stock the other half.

To realize how I am both completely limited and are free according to my limits to impose some will into the future by means of that which becomes the future and that only. How substances are absolute, and that therefore synthesis or consciousness in a given moment is not. That there must be a certain perfection that the substances inhere to, which non the less must be more than the consciousness I have here and now. That indeed there is more than me, yet that this which is more than me thus everywhere has a certain reflection in me. To not only identify this, but to be this identity, that translates well to human emotion such as making me feel well. Or be the "best feeling" in the world.

For example, I know you, though at the same time I can hardly say I know you.

We escape what we outgrow, I outgrew my ex and escaped her. It is ridiculous the kinds of things you language police about, though when it comes to philosophy everything must just float freely. : ) It is right at least, that we do wish to grow out of ourself for there is undeniably something which tells us there is more than this to us.

I know that what sits in front of me now is something I call a screen. I know the lamp behind me shares in some way the same identity with the other lamp behind me, though in another way it does not share the same identity. If someone switched their location adequately when I were not looking then I had no way of knowing that they did so, which is a way of considering how they have the same identity, yet they also have different identities for the one relates to everything else in a way the other does not. Lamp A is on the eastside of my bed, and Lamp B on the westside, this constitute an inessential identity concerning the lamp itself though essential concerning everything in relation to it. (and in some sense ultimately it in relation to everything) I know many things, I also know how I came to know many things. Though most I thought I knew were dogmatic and pure belief.