Reciprocality

@Fernanda 1. An object can be extremely many things, what is common between all its interpretations is that it is an identity which is imposed on a given subject, though it is here I argue that we by means of our internal syntax create the rules for possible identities, this internal syntax must be given a priori, that is before the object which were imposed on us in this a priori "language" were even experienced. An object in space today, such as a chocolate bar may be half a chocolate bar tomorrow, yet some identity is shared between them such that one can infer that someone have eaten half of "it". This would not constitute a knowledge of both being the "same" chocolate bar, though it is the same identity. If we did not have a mathematical syntax, such as edges or flatness we would have little to go on in creating the identity of the chocolate bar when we first saw it. An object can have a function, the object+its function can be considered a super-object, it can also be considered just an object, if that is just an object then what is then that minus its function? You would then need to invent a word for that, which is the reason why function would be best considered as different to its object while never canceled from each other completely. 2. Paper currency is an identity which extracts something from the sensation of paper money and give it to an a priori mathematical concept of scarcity. Now even the sensation of paper money is created from 1. a different though similar set of mathematical concepts to that of the chocolate bar and 2. sight. 1. is analytically a priori and 2. is a posteriori, they are combined in a way which forms an a priori synthetical judgement. Out of which I consider all identities of the "envirement" or "phsycial world" to be made. (though these are different from everyone, constituting the under determination problems) You probably meant paper currency in particular and not that by means of which it is considered currency, which would then shorten my exposition of it to just concern how we create the bill's identity itself. 3. You say that consciousness imagines things to experience(?) itself, do I got that right? If you explain what you mean by this I will give the rest of your comment my best attempt at a good response.

Now this is a question, I believe it is our most essential life force, to commune in some way, for if not then we had no way of escaping ourself. I find meaning in knowing, in fact in being what I know, in being how things are created. That is meaning for me. Language and its rules are a necessity for communication, everything follows rules, even when we break them. But this type of discourse is best conducted breaking as few as possible.

When you realize there is no way of making synthetic sense of existence because its negation is just invented, you discover also that there is no alternative to existence. (its "alternative" is invented in it) And that right now, your consciousness, is the analytic a priori proof of that. It is not the proof of the claim, the claim is synthetic, as all sentences are. But the sentence points towards a realization, and are only cohesive with its predicate when the experience is had. In fact the predicate can only be invented in language after the experience. (claims should expose a possible experience, but never reduce the experience into its exposition) On top of all this, somehow the realization were impossible without logic, as all things known are possible trough cohesion only and we are such things that makes cohesion everywhere. Everything is ultimately an analytical logic of consciousness, even the idea of something in itself upon which consciousness is contingent is, which is precisely why it is such a weird idea, and why every Philosophy before Kant that I am aware of circumvented this problem in funny ways, and why Nihilism: Existentialism and then Absurdism were its end results. Absurdism realizes that one can never make synthetic sense of existence, Nihilism desires to greatly to do so and Existentialism is in love with the mere idea of the thing in itself, and considers it himself.

First everything is mystical and then we identify the mystical into groups of things to make sense of it, some such groups are that upon which all other groups depend. Even though we can do this, do it automatically and can create a better life for ourself by means of it that does not make everything less mystical, that we can demystify the existence of the territory by a more and more complex system of comprehending and in some sense creating it, is the precise belief I do not hold. But the comprehending itself, it self illuminated, and is necessarily so. All of this is incredibly obvious, and I have grown impatient with making that clear. There is coherence, logic everywhere which makes life as you know, as I know it actual. I do not deny the possibility of something outside a mapping of coherence, but I have no idea what that would be like. Perhaps one would experience that on psychedelics, so far as non-duality is concerned, that may be an absolute coherence.

I must admit, I do not understand why you care about rules of language at all. Like everything you say point to perfect admissibility of gobbledygook. Why not just speak babytongue?

@A Fellow Lighter Reasoning so far as it is synthetic and involves identity from sensation (yet imposed on sensation) does not refer to a common understanding, unless you believe that the thing in itself is a physical world independent of you which non the less inputs into you your ideas that are just the same as someone else's. So far as it is synthetic though purely mathematical I am willing to grant that there may be something common between us in it the way sensible space is common between us. There is only one thing that does not make sense, and that is existence itself, because the negation we use to contradict it is internal to it. Everything in existence however, that all makes sense a priori at various levels of complexity, which is why consciousness has cohesion in it, and ultimately why it is not to stupid to consider consciousness as itself cohesion. That is right, without existence being necessary it can only make sense if you say that it is willed by something, most people call it god. Existence is only necessary experimentally from first person experience, which is why you will not end up with that realization unless you discover it yourself. At the same time, this experience is referenced by reason, and made cohesive in a given context by reason. There is no problem with doing that, but you can not brute force it trough pure reason, or synthetic logic. Here it is natural to make it ambiguous whether one refers to the identity of the realization or it itself, I try to avoid this. "You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X)" Nope. Everything is the reason you know you exist, which is why the question is meaningless. Your consciousness is a predicate, not a conclusion. There is no synthetic reason you know you exist, to attempt a philosophy which does that would be silly, though to attempt a science of doing that could give many, many answers, how you come to determine what those answers mean is the pinnacle of the hard problem, concerning which I have beliefs and not knowledge.

@Preety_India Write an essay about it, on government, namely how people should behave under your ruleset. I will be happy to read it.

Oh Leo acknowledged it? Well in that case....

@Preety_India MAybe you can learn something from masculinity, such as having some distance from people and not share everything with them. And also have some fair expectations of how people who do not know you will not care too much if you dislike their true sentiments.

@A Fellow Lighter "But I wasn't really on about differentiating between truth and belief. I just wanted to know if you thought there could be a way to see if, in evening our footing, we could tell if it is a lingual problem on my behalf or a “a too much belief” problem, again, on my side." You would begin with accepting that there is such a thing as sensible space, without which no object could be in it or made sense of by means of. And that this is true, and not a belief. And accordingly, that truths must be differentiated even though everything is truth. (so far as you wish to use language)

You have defined truth in a certain way which cancel your capabilities of actually understanding what I say. Words have become a problem itself, I know not how to help from here. Everything is truth, in the absolute sense. Words are not absolute, and you will not have it both ways.

@A Fellow Lighter @A Fellow Lighter I agree wholeheartedly that mysticism must be incorporated, since consciousness is necessary it (mysticism) better concern the thing in itself. Rationalism will never accept existence, even though it knows of its necessity, such as it does in me. Reasoning is many things, and considered very differently everywhere. So far as it is a priori itself it is a kind of truth itself, so far as it infer a possible experience from analytical a priori truths and a given identity from experience it becomes a synthetic a priori judgement, which can either be confirmed or not in the "environment". Everything concept for example in mathematics is analytic, but an equation becomes a synthesis of such analytical a priori truths in relation to the problem tried solved. The equation so far as it can be thought of trough completion at once becomes an identity that can easily be fooled for an analytical a priori concept such as 1. In this way 4 is an identity that can be considered in itself which non the less is a synthesis of 1s. Memories seem like they are self evident and self subsistent, when they are not (in relation to understanding) for this reason. The magic happens when 4 becomes 1 because you can just as much make 4 the unit of measurement (which makes 1 a forth), is it then 4 synthetic? Only in a given relation, but not "in itself". If you consider all this cynical then I feel compassion for you.

Because people can not accept themselves without a scarcity mindset by which everyone competes for attention and they define themselves by the attention they receive, instead of already being out of abundance enough and complete in themselves. This is what it means to be human, except when it is not, it takes people many years to become abundant.

@A Fellow Lighter You are right that it is impossible to survive without belief, and this is also important to discover. But to know the difference, that is where the gold is.

@A Fellow Lighter Philosophy's final aim is to cancel out belief from truth, and to impose a rule-system on human reason. It is also about discovering the minimal cohesion trough which every reason can unfold and become a possible science, such cohesion which is imposed on the "I" constituting sensibilities. Trough reasoning alone there is mathematics, which definitely discoveres a lot of life. "True learning happens through observation, not rational thinking." you just define learning to fit your personality, rather cynical.

@A Fellow Lighter That is only for you to know, I can't. I can only infer, and only infer so well.

There is a problem here though, I have not even got to my beliefs yet. We are simply on uneven footing. In you however, there seems to be too much belief, though that may just be a product of language more than you yourself.

Nothing is an impossibility, which is why nothing is required to create something. Something must always be. "What I'm saying is this.. For there to be perception, there must first be the perceptible." This is what the intuition of the thing in itself is expressed like. And we do not know if the perceptible is consciousness. The alternative is that you just speak of substance of mind, and not a thing in itself. Which would then make the distinction between for example doable and doing meaningless, as doing would simply be a particular instantiation of the doable. "Here's what I am certain of though, which is no induction: Yes, there is nothing outside of energy, for in order for a thing to be a thing, this requires an enablement of some sort simply because no thing can arise from nothing. Everything requires energy, yes?" Sure, everything can be expressed as energy (how would time have meaning without it), energy would also have no meaning without our sensibility of time. There is no mystery here. "Now, why am I saying that there is nothing outside of consciousness, not even the structure of reality? It is because consciousness is what enables the illusion that is finitude, consciousness is that great magician that works with pulling something out of nothing. Structure comes from instruction, picture comes from imagination, texture comes from context, and so forth. Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself." This assumes that the thing in itself does not exist in any way, we do not know this though we do not know the opposite either. To say that we can be possible without something in itself outside us goes contrary to all evidence, which non the less constitute nothing but belief and never proof. I have stated that it is absolutely mystical to consider something independent of consciousness, this does not mean it does not exist. We have only consciousness to go with when we both define and speak about existence, which inherently renders the thing in itself mystical. Yet all our intuitions and reason says it is there even though we can not know what it is like. "Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself." You have some peculiar self reference problems in your language, you could just as much state that "knowledge is knowledge, taadaa!"

@A Fellow Lighter " I just look at the world and learn from its patterns, this is the source of knowledge tuition that epistemology concerns itself about. Is it not?" If that is your epistemology then yes then you are correct, this is however extremely vague, as in the association I spoke of earlier. Knowledge is either a priori or a posteriori, it is either the faculty for understanding itself or the experience which is rendered under it. On top of this, it is pure consciousness itself, as that within which all else (known) occurs. At which point epistemology and metaphysics loses their distinction.

@A Fellow Lighter Well it is because we grow lazy towards our every day life, we simply take things we believe in for granted and create dogmatic schemes due to it. Everything you see right now is truth, everything you experience is absolutely true there and then. I am not skeptical about this and have never been. Empiricism stands on its own feets, though it is a shallow philosophy. Wherever there is an experience there is also a common denominator between it and other experiences, the absolute common denominator is consciousness BUT it explains very little to merely affirm such a thing (and it will not help you much in itself to conduct good science), and since everyone can in some sense agree that there would be nothing without their consciousness one needs to actually use the other sets of common denominators to have a well thought out philosophy concerning metaphysics and epistemology, such that perhaps consciousness can get an ACCURATE depiction or exposition within that system at last. That you contended with imagination being consciousness shows me how important that is. That scientists still to this day think they are speaking about the thing in itself shows me how important that is. That scientists in general therefore are unclear about the difference between speculation and truth makes these babysteps we conduct in our own bedroom concerning the validity of a belief of our own bed when we do not look at it, crucial. That the identities in our schema such as the bed can seem equally a priori as the space we intuits this identity in, this is the primary concern of the Post itself. How this comes about, how we are capable of rendering new experience into identities, and that it happens automatically is the primary reason for the potential of all dogmatism. I am very skeptical about ideas, most of these ideas concerns what you call the world, it is precisely because I am not skeptical about the world that I can use it as a foundation and a metric to compare ideas against. (If anything is not as true as the experience I have of the world right now, then it is a belief) All the things I say are just ideas and entirely meaningless on their own, they must be called to life in a sensible intelligence to be something more. Language will always just be ideas, we are supposed to take ownership and responsibility for actually seeing what the ideas represent.

A priori, synthesis, analysis, phenomena, cohesion, a posteriori, induction, necessity, knowledge, sensibility. It would help much if you also understood the mere foundations of Skepticism, Dualism, Idealism, Rationalism and Physicalism. (But I conduct the experiment in such a way as to hopefully not make that a necessity) If the ideas could be conveyed without the usage of these terms then I would be happy to do so, though my sentences would surely then include a definition of the terms instead, which I from a lot of experience determine as hurtful and not helpful to possible agreement. That becomes incredible long-winded, and given that I am dyslexic it really drains my energy to explicate everything to its most acute detail. I am despite all this a big picture kind of guy, but many guilty of that proclivity loses naturally along side it the ability to do more than merely associate terms with each other in relation to this 'picture'. At least I were, and now I see pure association pretty much in anyone to various degrees.

Yes this is a good science, a strong belief concerning our environment, though it is not knowledge that space consists of electromagnetic energy. That is as stated, a belief. The more familiar you are with its content, and the better scientist you are the more justified you are in believing in it. It is primarily an inductive method by which the scientists conclude with space being of this particular quality. My discourse here stands on its own feets independent of any science I have ever heard of. Edit: To claim knowledge of space as consisting of a particular energy is a dogmatic rationalism, though I would be more inclined to accept a claim regarding a knowledge of space as energetic. For the sensibility of space were hardly possible if energy were not happening everywhere in some sense.

@A Fellow Lighter "My friend", energy is also a term that speaks from an intuition that applies to everything. As such nothing is outside energy, though what distinguishes the sensibility of space with energy is how we synthetically determine that everything is energy while we determines it analytically that all objects appears in space. Everything that we imagine is also our consciousness, I made this strikingly clear for you. Everything is not therefore imagined, consciousness so far as it is also for example the sensibility of space is not. That is self evident, for otherwise you did not even have the luxury of thinking that it were imagined. We have in general a pretty accurate idea of external and internal, though this boundary is more of a map for the benefit of survival than philosophically sophisticated, to see where these boundaries collapses would be beneficial for comprehending what I say and also the questions that are my actual interest here. Lets consider the bed behind me, this constitute a part of my environment, had I not been sensible to space then I would neither have a means to create an identity of it nor experience the sensation of seeing it in the first place. I call it an environment that which constitutes identities that are either experienced in appearance or without an appearance. I only know about this environment right now those two general things (if I understand what you ask), though I do not know that the identity of my bed has an "equal" bed in the phenomenal environment itself if I turn my head, but have from induction a good reason to believe it will be there when I turn around. I can necessarily know about "anything" the way you phrase it. The ground were established when we agreed on the sensibility all environments must be made of. If there is any question regarding the possibility of knowledge, than that is already a good reason to be confused.

"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." There is no word for it that I know of, but this unified limit is imagination as it pertains to a possible experience, either duration is analogous to the other not in the way we went about creating them, but in that as a possible or actual experience they are both made by a faculty for imagination, or simply imagined. Consciousness is imposed or limited by the things that are imagined in it. Yet in itself it is unlimited. Every possible limit is also a potential towards the future. The future is never that which were anticipated before it became, because all identities by which we anticipate experience relates synthetically and not analytically with progression of time. This again can be explained by how no two things are either completely the same or completely different. Which again is the purest way of considering holism.

"The picture of the thing (X) is imagined" No, imagination is made possible due to it. Sensible space, without it imagination had no power. Though if you mean by the picture as in my reference to this sensibility then yes. Consciousness is not just what we imagine with but also the imagined. Consciousness is thereby both our experience of objects that we imagine and their predicate as sensible space. Sensible space is not imagined, if it were then you would again argue for induction all the way down.