Reciprocality

@Carl-Richard You have flipped everything on its head, it is wrongly inferred by us humans that space is physical. This is an induction from the experience of touch, as to say we assign space with an inherent quality of touchness if you like. We called it originally physical that which can be touched, in addition to this we have wrongly assigned space with many other qualities as for instance particles. All such inferences whether from experience or from pure abstraction I will readily give you credit in calling constructed conceptions. These are subject to a necessary unity in which they may be placed, space is not composed of them just like consciousness is not composed of the things which appears in it. (as consciousness is also when there is nothing appearing in it) Consequently if space were an inference from the aforementioned concepts, and in turn those concepts were also purely inferred then you have committed yourself to a house of cards which falls under the smallest scrutiny, or without. What you are left with is pure mysticism in which everything unfolds by will and random. As in denying everything which has to do with anything else, or what is worse special pleading in which you play at your own accord a game where whatever you wants to be connected is and whatever does not fit your mood does not. As I alluded to you have got stuck in language, you can not make certain crucial distinctions. I assume it has to do with a certain idea spreading like wildfire which states that everything is imaginary, I hate to ruin it but imagination is wholly contingent on the intuition of space. And our every second proves it both to me and to you. Question is what could make someone deny it? (in truth not even that is actually possible, which is why it is a language trick by you) So far as we play the game and allow everything to be imaginary we prove by means of the very playground that it is not. Our egos are imagined, our lives are imagined, our words are imaginary, meaning is imaginary but sensibility and consciousness is actual. And that it is actual seems like an inference, but it only seems that way when you have attributed language with the authority you have not taken responsibility for yourself.

@Carl-Richard Not to be obsessive here (I am a little bit about these matters) but I also spotted an internal inconsistency, which is fine. These are words, and they can trick us all. When you said that "I didn't do that." responding to my assertion that you reduced space into the definition which reports it you are at odds with your final conclusion above in 'space being inferred', as the only way space can be inferred is as the mere word which represents it.

@Carl-Richard Meditation my friend, teaches you the opposite.

Haha love it

You may ask how I know they are the same for us all, to which the response require no more evidence that the mere fact that we can point to for instance "space".

@Carl-Richard If you have not accessed particles in experience then obviously they are purely abstract, and even though they are posed as being behind the scenes in such a case it says absolutely nothing about what actually is behind the scenes. To believe that would be rationalistic materialism, but what you pose is a naive skepticism in which the very intuition of something is made up of the particulars anyone places under it as a class or set. The distinction matters a lot, may I ask if space is also made out inductively from experience? Time aswell? Because when I speak of "behind the scenes" I reference only the very idea we all have about there being such a thing, which we all posses with an accidental relationship to what we think of this behind the scene being composed of. It matters because conceptual constructions are a part of our schema and our personality, but these intuitions are the same for us all.

@Carl-Richard This is a Humean fallacy, while it is true that there exists inferences with regard to the particular things this intuition of something behind the scenes consists of, it is not an inference that there is such a thing as something behind the scenes. To think that reduces it to induction, but induction regards only the content and not the structure content necessarily connects to.

@Carl-Richard Everything that is spoken is a construct. Some such constructs refers to an intuition that is not, we refer for instance to the past as something which is different to the definition we use by the word past. If we could not do this we could not do anything. That which is behind the scenes is an undeadly intuition that is precisely the opposite of a conceptual construction as for instance its definition. Why on earth would you reduce the intuition of for example space into the definition you create because of it? For that is no different to reducing the intuition of something behind the scenes into the ideas we represent it with.

Since 1. everything is unified and 2. your are something particular there must be something behind the scenes, but because every unification is subject to reason we can only speak of and think of the scenery. The something which is behind the scenes must be no different than your essential being, and therefore be unspeakable. The reason it must be the same as you is because imagination does not have the authority to designate possibility, so even the thought that something can be different than you (as mere consciousness) is inherently absurd though perfectly possible as speculation and inherent to survival.

Solipsism is a rationalism which claims something it can not know, if the claim is true then the truth in the claim has to contradict the claim itself. Solipsism reduces rationality to something that it can not knowingly do, unironaically by means of rationality. You can not have it both ways, this does not undermine your enlightenment but your wisdom. The only way you can rationally say that only you exist is if you include the potential of other people into the sense of you. (notice this potential does not have do have anything in common with the idea you have of a particular person) But what you can not do is maintaining communication as possible or non mathematical arguments as meaningful while simultaneously giving up reason with regards to a possible other being, whether or not that being is ultimately the same.

There are two things one can learn in general though by reading in particular, either an explication of something one intuits by default or information which gets classed under such intuition whether that intuition is explicated or not. An historian or a journalist is to the latter what a philosopher or theorist is to the former. Do not expect to represent a theory you have read about as easily as you remember a location for a war, and least of all you must never hope to represent a theory in the same way you were subjected to it first. So far as you are capable of thought you must to that end take all ideas into yourself so readily that a bit of you is never missed when time is come to share it with others. If you do not remember much of what you have read then you hopefully weren't thinking much of what you read either, it can thus be the cause of too little experience. As trough it alone can something so weird as reading start aligning with the natural faculty of thinking which itself is subject to development.

@lxlichael "however the amenability of biological forces have always taken precedence over our bodily reactions, moreover, only a consciousness imbued with the biological power towards the awareness that allows them to transform those forces transmutationally, possesses any real legislative agency over the directionality of their consciousness, egoically, biologically and otherwise." What if instead it is consciousness that is placed wherever these biological forces 'took it' in the past, and that only in the future will there (not by means of consciousness) but inside consciousness occur such a schematic legislation of a will trough the body corresponding to the very same types of biological forces we begun the postulation with? And is it not better to conceive of the bodily reactions and biological forces as integral to a bigger theory of both and that it would be impossible thereby for either to take any form of precedence over the other? That these models have more utility in both predicting the future and speaking of reality as it is conceived of in the mind instead of the opposite on both accounts you have my wholehearted sympathy with, but is it not the actualized ego this all is done for when all is said and done? The actualized ego such that it instead of reality trough it becomes the primary concern in the model itself, one surely could predict that by taking a look in this forum.

Just like all your potential lies inside your limitations, so does the potential of a good conversation lie in the acceptance of also others limitations. We may react in annoyance towards others in their skewed or limited understanding by cringing, but it is always our limits which shines trough to that end. Those signals of annoyance, cringe or irritation are thus reminders that you can be far more then you think you can. Wisdom must not be too different then to an ability to cringe at ourself, so to desert all cringeness in the end.

@Aleister Crowleyy Is it not? What is it then master?

This is not meant to be a philosophy that everything particular is a representation of, it is more an inquiry on the capacity for seeming contradictions within a mind. I have at least for a decade had intuitions of a problem I never really sorted out, and will put it out here to see if someone has either 1: a solution to it, 2: synthesis of it into something bigger or 3: a rebuttal of it's meaning. Here goes: The value of a person x within a given system in general increases and decreases the value of all others y within that system were person x to die. To make it concrete let us consider a family, and more so your family (I assume most people here do have that). Will the death of your mother make the value you find in or projects on your father decrease or increase? Value as in how much you love them or how much they mean to you. For me it goes both ways, I refuse to say why I believe that for the benefit of open discourse. Similar though certainly different: Will the death of a child in a war make the value of each of the other children subject to the same war lesser or bigger? Is the value of each of the ten people living on earth in a scenario A equal to each of the ten billion living on it in scenario B? I do not ask these questions in the hope for any completeness in their answers, that would be buffoonery both in trial and error. Though I ask them to better know how I can make them sensible at all if I can, and from the intuition that any answer however low in resolution make me better in judging how to act. You can either project the meaning these questions have onto the world willingly, or you can cancel these projections dogmatically. I am happy for any kind of response.

@Aleister Crowleyy Well you surely are costing me my medications.

@Aleister Crowleyy A funny fellow, though at what cost?

@Aleister Crowleyy @somegirl Are you guys truth bombing each other while insisting to be subject to the law of the other by defending yourself? What in the world do you expect out of this? And what am I missing if I say it looks like your disagreements rests on the expectation or hope of the other being composed as a personality like yourself?

You want to change your day to day behavior without trial and error, without imposing your will onto your body so to make it do the work you want it to do? This is laziness, you want to ALREADY having developed something you have not and think that introspection will program for you what in others were programmed by hard work? Maybe I have misunderstood, be sure to correct my wrongdoing if I did.

@Someone here When you postulate time as a line I consider it impossible for me and you not to actually speak of the same thing. There is a reason time is intuitively considered a line, so much so one could easily question whether it is a line that should be considered time instead. We can easily use this representation of our timeline (as a line) in the representation of the complete timeline. The problem is that here now occurs a conceptual "inflation" for lack of better terms, by the mere fact that when we represent the complete timeline we do so within the subset of it which is our timeline. We are therefore not actually even considering the complete timeline (the represented) at all, except if you allow that it (the complete) must be limited in the very way you are limited. Limited in the same way, though not limited therefore by the same content. For were it limited in the same content then there would be no "it" and thus only you as in Leo's solipsism. Leo consider paradox to be inherent to the world for this reason, I consider it to be impossible within the world (as an object of my mind) for the opposite reason. I consider that you and I can speak of [time, space and causality] to each other etc as proof that you exist because I know not what existence would be had I not been able to refer to you or within myself to these sensibilities of time and space. etc. The counter argument would be that we exist also if all sensibilities were removed, this is existentialism. (though they do more than say only this) Guess who synthesize it all? Not completely but partially: Whitehead. He argues that everything changes and that no amount of identifying will make up for this perpetual eruption. Though of course this is a postmodern fallacy, which only gets half of the isomorphism correct and denies Kant's a priori sensibility such as space and even denies consciousness itself (I consider Langan to represent that argument). To argue that we exist without our sensibilities is unironically done by means of them, and rests in its truth on a faculty of knowledge I am unaware of. And must so far as I know it be self evident if to be true yet "beside" my existence. To get the whole isomorphism correct you would simply accept that words and ideas express something completely subjective which non the less can be more or less agreed upon generally, and which stems despite because all this from both all our faculties for intuiting things like space but also our imagination which makes the empirical world appear to us. Isomorphism is minimally considered as the relation between X (a territory) and the (two or more maps (Y1, Y2) which can be made of it). It can also be considered as (fasten your seat belt) the relation between XY (the terriory and its two maps) and Z as space (the sensibility of either). Do I know that you exist? I am afraid so, though all I know of you is equal to me. Had I known you for 50 years I sill would not know who you really are and for that reason I don't really know that you exist. The construct I make of you and your personality I do not know if it exist in itself, but that in you which refers to space such to make me and you point out in the world I know exists. edit: Do I know that this thing in you which makes space sensible exists "in" the brain? Definitely not, nothing which exists exists inside anything else. Insideness is arbitrary itself, and I can only induce from experience whether you pointing to space when I say space has anything to do with the brain. There is no authority in existence which could render the belief of this sensibility as being inside your brain truthful, so belief can therefore never be about truth. (which is what most people think belief is, for they have not thought for 5 minutes on what truth is) Belief is a method thus which makes experience trough imagination fall in or out of predictability, which is essential to science as the ultimate belief.

It would depend on how developed you both are, if she would feel hurt by it then that would not mean you should not have done it unless you are sensible to her personality and have reason to expect that she would. If ethics were considered as a field then it would be magnitudes more complex a study then all other studies combined. It may be smart therefore not to expect to always please everyone but to act by certain low resolution principles with categories within which updates by your interaction with people. It is completely your responsibility though to find out what is and is not okay for you to do with the limited information you have gathered and the limited sensibility and intelligence you (and we all) must have. This forum is of course a good source for such information, though nothing compared to actual interaction. Given the minimal consequences this dilemma entails in general I think you should do what you want without much considerations of it. Use your energy more on the big dilemmas. By thinking a lot on the bigger questions these less important ones tend to fall naturally in line with the bigger ones, though it is not impossible nor a bad idea to do the opposite; as in compare and understand the lesser dilemmas as in your example in terms of the higher ones. Edit: to all of you who have these ready cut yes and no answers on normative and applied ethics: That is cute.

INTPA 70%%, 95%, 60%, 85%, 90%

@Someone here If it spirals then it would be intuitive to assume that variations of yourself would unfold, though I would consider all geometrical constructs of these concept radically arbitrary and even pure association when all is said, so far as meta-time is concerned especially.

@Someone here If time is a line (X) then the existence of your body, mind and comprehension of everything (including this line (Y)) within that mind must be a sub-set (x) of the line (X) which is infinitely smaller than the line (X), such that after zooming into the line (X) for a million years you would still have an infinity of zooming to do to find the spec of your own timeline (x). If you are clever you can even see how "this line" which I overlined by the very context it is used in (as a particular comprehension in a given timeline) changes itself so to become incomplete. At which point you would also see the recursion in trying to complete it synthetically, which then makes the only way out an appeal to a priori sensibility, in terms of which all lines would refer to line X. By the simple logic that there can not be a "nothing" which makes the line begin nor end. The question is from here simple, does the line repeat like a circle or does it not? (both answers would constitute meta-time). And if we can find limitations to possible variations of matter within a three dimensional space, then we would require a 4 dimensional space to not have everything repeat, at some dimension we would not be able to calculate possible variations and thus be synthetically uncertain about whether we will repeat or not so far as we allow space to take a more than 3 dimensional spatial form. If we do not find such a limitation in variation to a 3 dimensional space then we would be uncertain also of it repeating or not, and not merely the four dimensional mathematical constructs which I would argue to be contingent on it anyway.

@Phil King That stage red is a more developed stage than beige does not make it less cruel. The beige and purple societies hundred of thousands of years ago worked far more empathetically towards eachother ingroup-wise than the emperial states did outgroup wise. If you define psychopathy to be the mere lack of empathy towards particular other groups then you have defined it out of the psychological context of not having the capacity in the first place. At no point so far as we know were there more psychopaths than there are today, and certainly no substantial difference, unless the words gets defined by the very object you have now found it useful to be labeled under. As in constituting no meaning relative to its actual use case. That there are no substantial difference in proclivity (not capacity) to be empathetic towards others of the same species can be seen in primates and in the animal kingdom in general. Empathy is inherent to every stage, the only substantial thing that changes in this axis is what gets defined as in and out group.