Reciprocality

@Someone here Everything possible is defined after the fact, so far as our knowledge is concerned everything possible must therefore occur and has therefore already occurred. The reason this would make almost everyone confused is because they experience for example the impulse to drink water and then goes to the fridge as though the drinking of the water from the fridge thereafter were made possible by the impulse. Not at all aware of how the whole scenario is potentiated right now. And by extension that when they now consider whether to go for a sip of water they are already realising the full extent of their consideration of that sip. Their mistake is how they have made the future into a caricature of it, into the sensibility they have of its possibility. But that the future is possible so far as they are sensible does not mean that they know what is possible within it, though they do know what is possible in their sensibility of it right now. " infinite possibilities need not necessarily mean that all possibilities are realised." I claim it does, because imaginative speculation has no epistemic validity. And so far as knowledge is concerned we must define possibility after the fact as already having been realised, yet the possibilities themselves beyond this we know nothing about. I would forgive anyone the confusion here. But right now I can't do any better explicating it.

Lets consider first that matter is the only substance that could be in the only possible consideration of a mediation of it; space and time. Since it can not begin to exist from nothing it must either have always existed or fluctuated in its existence. Since we necessarily define existence as something that is conscious in its totality whether we know it or not (and whether it is or not), must therefore belong to the concept of infinity. And since either the fluctuating or the eternally existent substance must be infinite, then the total sum of physical dynamics as matter, were it to be considered as existent independent or dependent on our consciousness must therefore itself be conscious. (as to say the only way it could be existent without being conscious is if existence transcends consciousness itself, the speculation of which is futile) Eternal recurrence is predicated upon physical matter as it unfolds in the absolute consciousness to be limited in possible variations, for the argument were it not limited like that is simple: Infinite variation so far as we consider it in in a 1 dimensional time frame makes your consciousness wherever it happens on that time-frame singular and finite thus never to recur. The very recurrence would actually force us to define physical variations as limited, especially so if you explicitly involve causality in the deduction though implicitly you are forced to.

@Seth When you expand in your considerations of art you are either diving deeper into the essence of art itself or you are merely standing in reactive opposition to the subjective nature of art by opposing your own subjective considerations above others while unironically thinking you do the opposite. Such that when everything should be considered art the actual artistic expression have been completely inflated. This particular postmodern reaction as described above unfolds trough an 'abundance theory' that everything ads on everything else, and that we are thus what we want to be and not what we are made of.

Art is abstracting out the essence of all things such to make the particular representations of those things pale in comparison to it. This essence can either be aesthetically pleasing or existentially authentic. So how can one abstract out the authentic essence of something which is not merely a reproduction of the universe which is authentic already as in thereby needing no abstraction? By paying better attention to it.

All programming can be questioned, but that very questioning unfolds in the same sphere all programming happened in. There is something which makes both possible. You think and experience trough it every day, yet never about it. So what is it? It is not consciousness, for that is the recognition that they are there at all as well as the result of them being there. To recognize what it is is all there is left to do when programming have exhausted its utility.

Gore is my best friend to easily load of anger and frustration, though more than anything it balances out existential dread/angst. The morbid curiosity part is gone, and it were this part which introduced me to it. On psychedelics I have not tried watching it, it sounds like a bad idea though so good luck to the braver of us.

"Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages" Do you think purple is beautiful? Well so far as you think it is you do not therefore think it would be beautiful if your teeth were purple. And just like that I think gay marriage is in general a betterment for the society it is made legal in, and the freedom it represents for those engaging in that marriages. But I do not therefore think that it is an all good, to take a random suburban culture in Africa or many other places and simply dictate their laws according to the ideal of gay freedom would be more harmful than not. Though it is hard to conceive of any place in which couples themselves would be subject to harm from within at such a rate which would make it better for the laws to prohibit their marriage, as I am sure many conservatives have argued. And even if it were that may not have changed my mind on the legality of it. When it comes to established religions with cultural significance in the west it is easier for me to constrain them to let gay people marry in their churches than for example a private marriage ceremony company. Just like the dynamics of two galaxies colliding it is never one or the other which completes both, and just like that is the essence of human behavior: ethics. I believe in neither universal nor objective morals, though the general is undeniable albeit often trivial.

Problems like these are so trivial. Instead of questioning where to draw the line between words, try instead to inquire about the dynamics the words are merely representing. And so far as I entertain your question, I see that you have already found an answer to it. The answer you have found is expressing in particular terms what in general only means 1. people and 2. groups of people. So far as perspective is something that one person has on a particular thing then a paradigm is something that one person is subject to from his culture of many people which then relates to particular things. Though these are merely words, they can mean whatever you want. The question is therefore how the logical structure beneath them operates.

@Someone here I'm sorry but when I read your comment I see pure information, I don't know what to do with it. "If you insist that Muslims do not twist the words of the Quran, yet also admit that there are different interpretations by Muslims, then some may view the words as being "twisted" and some not." What I believe this means, or more so what I believe this to mean is 'The information of their holy book can be interpreted in various ways, and some are also twisting the information willingly. And that to insist that Muslims have a unilateral interpretation would contradict the evidence that they indeed do not.' On the below I can merely say 'okay'.

@Vincent S Yes it can feel amazing to take radical responsibility for not only our schema as we implicitly discuss above, but also the very inbuilt nature which the schema is subject to. I believe stage yellow is primarily the former, and whatever transcends turquoise is primarily the latter.

@Someone here Wait, you want to burn churches so that they can build them up again? I am no logician, but that is the conclusion of your premises above.

@Vincent S And you can relieve yourself of immense pain by having deprogrammed your flawed culture from the mind. And you will do so proportional to the amount of loneliness you can handle. Unless you would be so lucky as to find someone who shares your essence despite coincided cultural deprogramming.

Because we want it both ways, we want to respect cultures while not having to deal with them. Because we want to feel welcoming and tolerant without doing the actual labor of being welcoming and tolerant. Because we create a society in which our opinions are more important than our actions, because we are narcissists in disguise. Though it is all built on a genuine recognition that we are not culturally superior to others, except the conservative one of our own culture, which is our biggest contradiction. So why? It is an aesthetic, a mere apprehension so we don't have to think.

Yes suffering is essential to the type of growth which makes you independent and truly yourself. Yet just like you can experience hundredfold more pain than you could ever benefit from trough a needle in your arm you can limit your growth trough angst and self imposed trauma. So what are the traumas you should impose on yourself? To question and penetrate beliefs to the very limits, you can not predict how much you can handle and therefore you must suffer more than minimal.

Immanuel Kant, as evident in 'Critique of pure reason' Nothing speaks of integrity more than renunciation or abandonment of the desire to know things in their independence from yourself. Edit:, so far as reading the book goes, it may not be necessary for understanding its contents, he is famous precisely because there are many who studied him and for that reason there are ways to go about it indirectly trough those. Most of its contents do not require much understanding, because he speaks to that in you which makes understanding possible.

Arthur Schopenhauer

When it comes to life there are no fair competitions. You understand the situation you are in disjunctively, as in comparatively to other situations other people are in, this, so far as you are sufficiently conscious is a mistake which hinders your growth. Despite common belief it does not change the above whether you ruined your life on purpose or not. So ask yourself what the ideal you consider is when you compare yourself to it, and if it is your true dreams or not which comprises it. So far as your general health and security is in check it is your conscience which makes you unhealthy, for it compares you to your dreams and not your explicit ideals. So instead of judging yourself for years on end try instead to make your dreams explicit, such that they can be properly compared with the ideals which are not truly yours. Recognize that I speak not of people in general, but of how i perceive you. And so try to do the same.

Despite the misapprehension of a few comments above it is very possible to see some limits of turquoise from the perspective its less developed counterparts, the thing is that these limits are precisely what is not essential to turquoise. So far as you are fully integrated in turquoise you are more than the essence of turquoise. And so far as you are fully integrated in it you create your own limitations so to move beyond them, so far as time is occurring, so far as something is moving forward there is something to discover. This enlightened stage stands in direct cultural opposition to whatever preceded it, it is entirely plausible to comprehend that humans move beyond it when it does not stand in opposition to anything.

Since language becomes less and less complete within each stage (each individual in between). and the reasons thereof, I believe whatever transcends turquoise must be a rationalism which do not even try to communicate, and create systems of belief that the person who holds them know they can not share and knows equally much are subject to their own judgement only. I believe stage coral as precisely that which have realized the complete oneness of being has also realized the oneness of reason and will be reached by those only with higher faculties for sensibility (though not necessarily). What in yellow is individual sense making by the premises of the collective for the general benefit of the system of society is in coral an individual sense making for reasons it can not itself formalize or even intuit thus (so far as it is concerned) as an end in itself. It would be the universe comprehending itself by the main artery so to say, as opposed to the lesser arteries for the benefit of selfish individuals. Even though Turquoise have seen the limitations of belief it has not at all, so far as we measure this by the individuals we call enlightened, integrated belief as the teleological reason for the existence of the universe.

Well I did not even finish high school and I could coach you just fine.

@GreenWoods That which meets a wall trough the passing of time while traveling on the flat earth meets its starting point on the globe, it is an infinity we call it in math or in general when you can go beyond your starting point by means of a single deminsion.. as a closed system.

@GreenWoods Time is the dimension in which something finite can stretch beyond itself so to constitute what humans call infinity. If you conceive a flat earth with walls surrounding it you can conceive a finite earth, but when you conceive of a globe; the first dimension which is finite in the first conception becomes infinite in this conception (equator) so far as you allow that dimension to penetrate itself trough time. The finitude of all objects of experience can likewise become infinite in consciousness trough time. Edit: not to spoil it but in the conceptual domain everything is finite, including Cantor.

@VivaldoTo not know for sure if other people are conscious is not solipsism. The more 'degrees' you assign to the idea of solipsism the less meaningful the idea becomes. You can either know or believe that you are the only one of the many seemingly existent people that are actually having a conscious experience, Leo claims that he knows. I don't think you can know (well I can't by definition, so far as you're concerned), but as far as we allow some skeptical imagination it is "possible" for you to know. There are many ways of contextualizing the metaphysics of solipsism, but that does not mean there are many different ones.

@Gesundheit2 In being a subjective idealist in the manner by which you hold independent consciousnesses of each other which are all existent yet fundamentally divided. That is so contradictory that is amazes me how it is done, at that point you would be far better of believing in the independent existence of a physical world as the very division between such consciousnesses and even more so the contingent existence of that physical world. Now so far as subjective idealism is a monism the above does not apply to it, at which point the difference between it and objective idealism becomes meaningless as in constituting an isomorphism. The problem is that these terms are defined by people who do not understand what they themselves mean when they say existence. Edit: There is only one possible thing one could mean by existence, yet they are managing to screw it up.

@Leo Gura There is only one way in which the creation of other minds must necessarily mean that there is nobody 'on the other side' of the minds that are created by me, and that is that nothing exists also at my side. Otherwise it would have to be a belief from speculative rationalism. So the question becomes then if it is the same type of nothing which the idea is founded upon that exists 'on the other side' that you refer to when you say that you do not exist? By other words, for people who have not directly experienced this nothingness are never actually even considering solipsism. Self inquiry with the guide of others (you can lol at that) have made it obvious to me that whatever entity i refer to, be it a thing or a someone, I refer back to my creation of them. Though at the same time it is far from obvious I created the space, time or magnitude etc. they must be created within. As in had they not been created in these elements then I had thereby no such element to refer to them in now.