Reciprocality

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.

To define it as a continuum would be to make the objects of experience which consciousness is subject to take precedence over the consciousness, in some sense. So as to say that the true bedrock, that which never moves is something objective that consciousness merely visits. I believe it must be precisely the other way around, that it is the objects which are a continuum and consciousness which is standing still. If you are anything like me then you must be fundamentally like me. edit: It is possible that I have understood both the word continuum and your usage of it very wrong though, as i think about it.

@Yeah Yeah Well that is no bad set of ideas if you ask me, is it that you want to ask him about the topics for clarification or more your own understanding of them being validated?

Marriage is like ten things. Here are some. IT is a ceremony with or without familiy and friends. It is sacred oaths that transcend both the time in which they occurs in history and the time in which they occurs in a couple's life. It is a religious act, and a secular one. It has economical implications, it is typically subject to a law. It is romance and love, yet so very inessentially so. There really is not much to say about it other then reflections on what it comes from and theories on what its societal implications are in the time to come, except reflections on what it would mean to you in your private life as something with minimal bearing on its general meaning. It is virtually insane to say for example that marriage is in general not a good idea. (that is if it were supposed to mean something).

What does it mean that energy consumption gets wasted, and why does that happen by not rejuvenating? And what would it mean to rejuvenate the wrong way as opposed to not at all?

It's impossible, caring is predicated on truth. Truth is indivisible. The problem is to aligning yourself with an ever expansive yet humble theory of truth, and that is not at all important for most people. It is important if you for example are at all interested in achieving for example SD stage yellow values, or in the negative sense of transcending the limitations of your culture and yourself. Our problems as humans is our thirst, our appetite, both so far as they can not be fulfilled and for almost all of us so far as they are fulfilled.

Many a knee jerk reaction. Psychological disorders are defined radically removed from a comprehension of spiritual insights. It is an individual and an individual only who can come to terms with the variety of their experiences, there can not be so far as we know done a general science beyond any individual and their particular experience which has any bearing on their experience, for this reason alone it is futile to conclude from speculation on a difference between disorders and mystical phenomena. In truth all phenomena is mystical, and to that effect all psychological literature becomes speculation. Derealization is not a particular meaningful idea, solipsism is. The former is an identity that has been put on a bunch of different individual experiencing things that are understood as different to consensus reality by themselves and by their therapists. The latter can integrate what can in the former be denied, that is a phenomena in which rationality is defined by the limits of the phenomena itself by the subject which has it.

There is no ought at these bottom layers of perception. And when there are they are inessential. And that is paradoxical to my signature, were it taken as such a bottom layer.

For some men not jerking of can be exactly what is needed for having something to lose if the courage to pick up girls were absent. (as in losing the pleasure of coming) Or better yet: that there is something more to lose without jerking of then coming as evident in the girls that you have no courage to pick up. To which reason not jerking of can be found as a coping mechanism. A complex world indeed, the question is which are you?

Whats your theory that you most want to speak with him about?

On belief (i will not continue writing with myself after this) How can I believe in an independent world from myself? The very object of belief would be included in the self that I believe it to be independent from. I want to say that i believe in a physical world, for my emotions want it that way. But the contents of this independent thing is completely empty! Would you look at that! It is a nothing theory, a nothing philosophy. At best it must be god, as the will of all things. My logic can not accept a god that creates itself for all my experience says that existence is a necessity. So now I ask, why us? why me, why then this particular configuration? All such questions are included in the self that asks them, they can not be beheld to an answer beyond myself. I can not conceive going deeper than this except 1. enlightenment and 2. a teleology which speaks on the place we are headed towards and not merely the things that are.

Lets do it this way, lets say that bricks are bricks. Lets say that we have a concept of bricks because we have seen them again and again so to at last make a category out of them. (empiricism) And that the bricks are out there whether or not we see them. (rationalism) First of, trough which means could we make a category of bricks? Well the category 'brick' would depend on the very same thing the independent brick did, as in first and foremost time and space. Time and space must therefore either be themselves something that we have understood from perpetual experience which begs the question of what they themselves depend on etc. or time and space must be themselves be inner as well as outer experience. The Skeptic (because he do not dare to admit the system being closed despite a priori certainty) then sinks into an absolutist realm of imagination from where space and time as that upon which the bricks depend could come from anywhere and therefore claims uncertainty to why they can comprehend it. They would simply say "prove to me! prove to me!" a posteriori on matters that are purely a priori. The rationalist is both worse and better than the empiricist, in the construction of the category of brick rationalism is a necassary evil so to say but the same is NOT the case for time, space and causality (and more). But the empiricist remain humble to the idea of an independent existence of time and space from himself.

@Carl-Richard @DocWatts Haha well I be damned, I could do a different approach. It is a silly game in some sense though it has become natural for me to not write more than necessary, yet at the same time defend against the senseless interjections that are so common before they occur. First of, there are no discrete objects, your consciousness is the minimal and only evidence required for the certainty thereof. The bricks are clearly here beside me, yet it is not they that are bricks but instead me who make them such. The 'them' that I call bricks are never also there when i close my eyes, yet something necessarily remains, for now I speak of the very predicate to which the bricks could be proven if I so chose to look at them. I call it, as others have before me an outer and inner experience, (you would be forgiven for finding that absurd), there is an intuition which connects the content of both. (i cringe now for that is not always the case but this is the new approach) This is not some ultra skepticism/empiricism (i do not reference my imagination as they do for the potential of being wrong, that is a Humean insanity), I am only skeptical of one thing so far as i know, and that is the idea of a separate existence beside my own as knowledge from reason. I am a closed system at perpetuity, yet new things unfolds all the time, so very strange don't you think? I probably should stop giving answers, it is likely a pathology of mine. You would like me more if I begun asking the questions instead.

@Raptorsin7 You thinking that cult following or not, delusion or non delusion, shortsightedness or not, wisdom or less wisdom has any bearing on enlightenment or non enlightenment is a mistake. (which is not to speak in general terms about how likely you are to be wise from a state of enlightenment) There is nothing more clearly established from a mere peak at a history then that. This Nahm case should show the general direction this forum will take, but why this obsession with him in particular? I ask not because I think this obsession is unwarranted, but because I don't understand it. Which of his advises were useless?

It is almost like this thread could need a mod, oh wait.