Reciprocality

@Carl-Richard I believe in the study of ideas trough their minimal coherence within ones own mind, from the mind itself. Such that instead of asking what the difference between ontological and methodological reductionism is you venture out into problematic world so to find in it precisely the place and reason where the ideas bifurcate. In this way you posses not only the subjective defining power of words, but have alone the complete authority over every single word you use. Such that it would be impossible to be wrong on your applications of the ideas (if you are good at it), because the words becomes mere illusions that you but onto bigger conceptual illusions or truths. (oh boy this can be misinterpreted) To make it concrete, I were unaware that there were formal labels that differentiated between the method and ontology of reductionism until right now, yet upon reading about the difference it were as though I had studied them already, and of course in essence I have. The latter is a rationalism which is naive to the limits of its mind so to believe its conclusions can speak of independence. The former sees new things unfolding every day in science, it knows not what to make of it but it will not deny empirical reality, it does so trough whatever ontology 'works' so to say. It can do so without any belief of independence. Independence is whatever object is owed its existence from reason alone, sometimes these objects of reason unfolds into the paradigm of the physical and other times the Theological. (i will elaborate on this if you want) Reductionsim itself varies, sometimes it begins with the premise that all things must at their smallest part be the same. At other times it simply reduces all higher order explanations to the sum of the smallest parts they find, without explicit claims beyond that at all.

@ivankiss The argument of truth being outside knowledge would actually stand in proportion to the impossibility of simply being without concluding anything about it.

If the earth is flat then its area in relation to its circumference must be a forth of its current size.

@ivankiss Belief separates from truth the way a fan separates from its current. It ultimately does not, but as far as language is sensible they do. What your claim has to do with physicalism is simple, the idea that there is something independent of you encapsulate both. This idea is a belief, as i referenced as such. : )

You begin merely affirming things that it would make you insane to deny. You then find kinds of things in some naive opposition to other kinds of things, you are sure to discover that these kinds already have labels associated with them throughout history free of charge so to say. You ask if it is possible to know what separates such kinds, if you conclude with yes then you have done so aware of your reasoning faculties as they alone could triangulate such results. (others would say they were always there to be discovered, ex. Kantian idealism) Some people would at this point take leaps of faith and conclude that a brain predates such kinds and are the true reason they unfold, other people would make rigorous scientific analysis of the brain and make statements on its connection to the mind trough an inductive method from empirical information to believe what causes what in so far as they after the analysis score good in their predictions. Most of the latter class would be Epistemic Rationalists, that is they believe in abduction from induction, they believe in knowledge as objects of reason. Some of those believe that their objects of reason says something about an independent existence, these are ontological rationalists. Others would be skeptical about knowledge from induction, they would often altogether make a complete distinction between relation between things (a priory) and Impressions (a posteriory). Epistemic Empiricism as such holds knowledge to be the impressions in themselves. Impressions as defined as cold, warmth, heartbeat, visuals, etc. Epistemology is the heart of science, good epistemology has the potential to revolutionize it.

@ivankiss According to your standards of truth being beyond your mind you could not know that truth were beyond your mind, in fact you point within your mind when you say that you point beyond it. There is no fundamental difference between this and hardcore Physicalism, merely a difference of form.

Let's say you question the possibility of something incoherent. This necessarily unfolds on the predicate of coherence, as to say that if you arrived at a conclusion of two distinct properties not unfolding with perfect proportions you are giving them their higher order proportions in the awareness of their asymmetry alone. This is what the mind does, no indeed it is what doing is. Or worse: it is ad infinitum. The question itself closes the system, there can only unfold a mirage of open-endedness, this mirage takes form of reductionism, dualism, physicalism etc. The traditional Skeptic is entrenched in the biggest mirage of them all. He gives absolute authority over imagination, such that it poses to him the potential of for example his memories being inadequate for referenced truth. He even trough his faculties for imagination says that effect Y does not at all need to proceed from a given cause X. He says "I don't know, for I can easily imagine an effect Z." But this assumes already that there is anything truthful yet undiscovered trough the imagined, but that is precicely what is absurd, for nothing can be beyond the system that he closes. The Solipsist do not give his pure imagination such a power, it is that simple. He simply do not entertain the imagination as something beyond its own limits. There is no paradox, only imagined confusion. And there are no referenced truth.

I'm uncertain if this thread were meant for everyone to share their near death experiences, I'll assume it were for they are probably the reason I don't meditate too often as the NDE have got real when deep in it. Like scared that I will die from meditation, it happened a few times and even though I told myself between them that I should just face it I do the exact opposite when there.

@Preety_India So the question is two-fold, not merely what i in exact terms point out, but what you exactly get from it.

In choosing when and when not to apply language and its logical predicates you are dangerously deep in delusion. For there must be one thing and one thing only which takes the choosing part, we call it the ego. You can easily make among the many minds a castle from where to judge them yet with a locked door which never lets them in for they see in you without necessarily knowing so the lack of integrity such a choosing means.

@Preety_India Well ego is the final delusion, and only trough it do you lack integrity, as in particular the instances when you wield logic trough any language at all yet at the same time will avoid logic when its is inconvenient. To put it very simply, to have it both ways is a mighty delusion.

@Leo Gura You can ask questions in two radically different ways, you can do so either aware of its limitation or unaware of its limitations. Funny enough it is when I do not limit it in a particular way the dialogue becomes a robotic one in which I can predict your answer exactly because you do not engage with me according to my limits, according to your particular limits. If anything is necessary then all things are necessary, and if all things are necessary then will as a necessity must be together with and not in opposition to necessity, for were will a mere part of all necessary things then it would create things that would not themselves be necessary. The reason all things must be necessary from the confirmation that some things are necessary is predicated on the nature of the thing that are necessary as you yourself put forth as experience, experience is the predicate for all things and how can such a predicate include things within it which are outside its power as necessity? Existence is created out of necessity for nothing is an impossibility, see? To conceive of will as non-necessary as you do if you think god could choose not to create, then you become altogether meaningless.

@Leo Gura Just to be clear, that existence is even a possibility blows my mind on a daily basis to the point where i question my sanity. Yet they follow up with the most sane thing, namely pure awareness as a necessary thing from which alone gods will as infinite is accompanied trough the very restrictions that I where flabbergasted with the moment before.

@Leo Gura I referenced Curt as mere context, for indeed you are right as you've been before that his very purpose rests on him not ending up with anything tangible in itself. He is skeptical not only on synthetic judgement or claims but even on the very defining power he posses of words as a reference of analytical a priory concepts as evident particularly in his convo with Spira. I love him, but that is pretty insane. All restrictions being self-imposed are the very predicate for my questionings above, you probably did not understand what I meant and i don't blame you. It is a tricky problem to explicate and even more gets lost in translation. We are here, when speaking of things beyond experience we reference at all time our imagination and intuition such that the material world become a mirage of ourselves. We ask then why something at all? To which a response is that there were at no point anything else than 'something', this something is composed of no particular thing in opposition to any other particular thing but of no composition at all for it is infinite. Each time we reference the infinite we make a finite construct which never really has anything to do with the infinite other than as naive point of reference. (and in some sense the infinite already) You say that this infinite is both absolute truth and absolute will. You say then that all restrictions are self imposed and for me to agree I then have to say that there truly were a nothing beside god from where god created all things, the contradictions if I did not say that occurs because to create something as opposed to not creating anything is a restriction. The absolute restriction to be sure. But nothing is more absurd than a postulation of a nothing that exists, to which reason i conclude that the restriction of having to create something at all is actually the absolute ontological primary that not even infinite love/god can take away. I really can not get away from this issue, in some sense I am rid of any doubt concerning it yet afraid it shows the problem of language more than a great metaphysics.

@Karmadhi Haha well there are levels to fuck-ups it seems, though I don't really think you are fucked at all. It won't sort itself out however, so it is a matter of responsibility, and only you can take it for she obviously needs you to lead.

@Karmadhi well she is a girl, I know it is considered politically incorrect or whatever to understand the fundamental difference between men and women in general but she probably have things to lose that you do not. And she want to be a trophy, so instead of wasting time understanding her inner workings right now I believe you should accept that it is not easy to understand, as so many guys before you including me have had to accept.

@Leo Gura Yes, but is it not restricted to create something as opposed to avoid creating, is not that evident in all things always? If granted that the only thing it could not avoid doing is creating as evident by each of its products (or the singular one), then what about its particular products? Are they not evidently necessary as per experience alone? I would say so to an absolute certainty, it is here where my questions takes the predicate of the particular manifestations among the many possible ones and asks why ME in particular? To which the response again and again is both that it must be me for I am also the question, at which place there are no mysteries left except those relation among things that I naively accepted as me hitherto. Why then call it a willing thing, if as Curt alluded to in your convo it is just as much a perfect restriction?

@Leo Gura Is time travel part of your teachings also? @Karmadhi Even though you played rather nice the first time around you should probably listen to Leo if you get a second chance.

I'm sorry but I wont dictate an appropriate text for you. In fact I think you should call her if you first text that you want to, and say you are into her. I mean you said it yourself that texting is not your thing, it is not mine either and calling at an appropriate time has helped me in similar situations. How to do it, well that is precisely what i think you should figure out yourself.

Nothing confusing at all, you have to say that you are into her without being desperate. You already made out, be clear in your signals from now. She is testing you. edit: She might not be into you (could not know), but it is almost impossible that being blunt about your interests in her can ruin anything at this point in the relationship.

Life is an imposition on your existence, for imagination can pose for you the contrasting element to that imposition as precisely what makes you realize exactly what it means for you to be enslaved as such. But because there could be no restriction on the essential being which did not pose trough what we call "the future" its potential in equal extension we are free exactly because of our limits. But not even imagination can be of any contrast to for ex. the senses, in the ultimate sense, as to say it is not imagination as such which gives rise to the new moment but a force that an eastern influenced Pessimist like no other named Schopenhauer called 'The will as the thing in itself". When you speak of suffering you either report on you own experience or you speak on how (and how much) suffering distributes over existence as a whole trough beings such as yourself, to fail the distinction between these classes of things would stand in bad proportion to application of language at all, as the recognition of people beside you (if as mere objects of intuition) would be a precondition as well as extension of both. I believe suffering outweighs the opposite for most people by the reasoning that as an impression it takes all focus away, while a happy feeling seems to go readily unnoticed. Now, we apply dichotomies to all things for language to be sensible, that does not mean I say here that there is anything sensible to the idea that suffering has its real opposite, that is an assumption trough reasoning going haywire.

@axiom Perhaps there better be two languages, one for practical use and another in which the reference is always open and by which we do not put things in classes as in the former but put forever expansive classes on things.

I'm no master of meditation but I have noticed that I am less receptive to noise and touch when deep in the void. That may be due to the very same reason my vision becoming almost black if I stare on a single object for five/ten minutes, and indeed the calmness of meditation permeates the latter as well. To be a veteran of the void i think is a difference more quantitative than qualitative, such that what has in all of us the most potential for impression can be the most evaded in him or her. I had some minor angst a few weeks back, there were no doubt then as there is regarding minor pain in general that my focus on it actually made me suffer less or not at all. With my body burning however I expect no such fortune.

The only thing that can 'take over' in the sense I believe you mean it are beliefs themselves, emotion or logic in their purity can therefore only indirectly and therefore never really at all take over anything alone. No sentimental, emotivist, naive frame of mind can therefore be that very frame unless the belief in them perpetuates their essence. As with a logicistic, positivistic, dualistic, physicalistic frame of mind, since these things all flails their own predicate they are taking its stead. Since cohesion is impossible without logic, and all your life amounts to cohesion the question becomes not how one can make everything fit together from intention but why it fits together without intention at all. Emotions do not negate logic, emotion drives logic to its objects with or without conscious intention.

To assign probability to a WW3 in the next few years is the pinnacle of pure speculation,a drudgerous task devoid of both reason and aim. Though it will either be a world war in some sense or there will be no world war in any sense, what i would speculate on rather is the nature of the war were it to unfold at all. As a conclusion from there you are likely to see how that looks very different from the past wars we are familiar with, and for that reason alone you can see how the bayesian model of probability will do you minimal service. Unless you close the system, begin from 50/50 and infest the reasoning with naive objects of reference such as "putin this" "the u.s this", "atomic bomb here" or "fear here". The problem then is that the meaning such references are supposed to contain in proportion to the universe are so radically removed from its actual workings that the conclusion says more of your insanity then about the world beyond established grasp. At which point you discover the inductive method as a means for each such object to bear resemblance to the present world as idea, but since the object are themselves intuited as wild-cards that function at immeasurable will you are left without any more insight then you begun with, as well as the problem of drawing from trivial experience in history as alluded to above.