Reciprocality

There is this thing called "theory of other", just because you know that you did not know does not mean that others know that you did not know.

I do not quite get the meaning of your question with regard to the experience. And to the degree i understand it it is rather absurd haha, you ask me if i can validate the "possebility" of my previous experiences being (neccesarily something else then the experience) in retrospect, by means of intuition? I can tell you that IN THE MOMENT, it were a feeling of disbelief, a sensation that "holy shit how is the uniserve even real" i would name it a detachment of sort.

I see you have missed the mark but i think you may get back to track after this. Indeed i could be attached, attachement is a reflection of identity, if i need MMA to be me then i am attached. If i need anything at all, indeed, i will be attached. To know actions to be a choise so when it comes to it one can easily let it go is detachement. When i eat in the moring i do so out of attachement, when i crave for sex i do so out of attachement, now it may also be a physical craving beneath and prior to identity, but so is violence. As explained already, not the red and orange incentives, but the beige. Now, that is evolutionary the case. .. Unless one argue for turquoise enlightenement (which you probably do not), attachement is not itself that which needs avoidance, but indeed the content with regard to the specific action and modalities. The totality of MMA culture is not the least bit what we will find value in discussing, most your point with regard to it are rather self evident. In our civilized society we neccesarily undermine our anger, beneath it we undermine our physical proclivity to test when something becomes to violent, that is great with regards to the ultimate goal of public demanor and a functioning public square, obviously. But in a discussion regarding truth i care to lesser extent of utility. I am yet to see a Russian Systema practitioner at 155 lbs kill Khabib, non less winning in a fight with him, but guess what? I would not believe it, although being radicaly openiminded to it happening. Now have you seen it happen, or were you a little bit attached? You see? Missing the mark, now try again. : ) I can add that "MMA" has within it all martial arts, i refer not to the sport, but the meaning of the words (edit: if i were unclear about that, that is on me). I wonder whether you in retrospect are able to see how conclusive you are, on so very thin layers of premises?@Danioover9000

Is it documents regarding legality directly, or between the mma leagues and its fighters? For the former seems rather retarded.

fantastic!

I will certaintly say that death is absurd, alot like 2 times 0. One idea you've had in a video is that death is to get blown out into the universe in infinite direction withn infinite velocity in infinite short time, this i find plausible. But non the less a death, you say there will simply follow an experience, this do not negate "death". It can only negate death if what one NOW are experiencing when alive is the same as when dead, perhaps that is your idea. But at the same time you are also "merely" a human with an ego. Fack, gimme some of that toad.

Beautiful, and thank you alot for the response. Of all alternatives to MMA BJJ have been my favorite, and within MMA the grapplers have been those i enjoy most fighting. The extreme violence is a seperate fascination for me, but elsewise to by means of some very specific techinques take out someone without hurting them is truly something in its own right. If you have done it for a year i presume you would be able to take out 95/98% of the western male population, have that given you a confidence boost? And accidentaly to the previous question, does it feel good to know you truly can defend yourself? Ego i believe, would be no issue for me, the adrenaline boost though that is another monster. I would only be interested in a well cutomed gym if it came to it, and do think the bell curve is as it is everywhere valid in also this area. You speak of physical discomfort, would you mind being a little bit specific?

Its amazing that you even use words. Edit: you know, language, sentence, grammar, syntax. Amazing.

I mean, if you want to reign war on logic i applaud you, but do it with the cards on the table, there can be no halfway "contradiction is an issue when i say it is".

Nope, that is according to Nahms logic which seems rather off. A beautiful floating contradiction you are sir, peculiar. I understand you are awake and that i respect, but please come down to earth so we can agree on the very foundation to your own disagreement, hehe.

Lenin and Stalins Gulag, you want red? Well there you have it! : )

You validate causation by claiming that causation is limiting, by using any words at all you validate causation as a means of language, a means is itself a causation. The mere wanting of an example validate the neccesity of causation, its self evident. So therefore claiming causation as an absolute limit is at best an insane act, but to claim some causation within a relative domain to be of a certain limit (with the connotation in your wording) could potentialy be turthworthy or of utility.

In an absolute sense? Or with regards to specifics, since your comment would in an absolute sense be its own negation.

To the first one: yes indeed. To the latter: death is imaginary as you said, it does not make it less real if you get shot, it makes it unknowable now whether it becomes real or not then. Unknowable and imaginary are anitthetical to a conclusion of the fatal reality, synchronicaly death IS just an idea in my mind. But that does not tell us anything about the diachronics thereafter, neither does it tell us there is anything thereafter at all. Which makes it fallacious to conclude that there can be no death. This is the case whether death is fatal or not. edit: Fallacious does not mean you are not right, it means language did not serve the purpose you either fooled yourself into believeing or the purpose on real premises but bottlenecked by language itself, which may be the case.

Death is imaginary, experience will change to something else. Does not mean death is unreal. It means we can not KNOW if death is real.

Quite the interesting subset to take into consideration

With that logic you can only agree to those things which bedrock you can falsify and know you stand on, that would be impossible in the real world. Or alternatively agreement is a word we can not agree upon. On the last sentence i made the point and only the point that hierachies are a neccesity for action, is it its validity you can not agree with? I am not, nor do i think it would. Reason as a sensational bedrock in itself, that is the only way i could justify reason as a cause for emotion, it is probably an unfalsefiable question however. I do not believe i care much to speak of the aesthetics of this, and can not see why you would bring it up. The duality bring to the table that which makes it knowable whether all reason are means to justify emotion and other synchronics, or ALSO ends in themselves. I would suggest you to write something of your own, a few aphorisms which encapsilates your understanding of my line of thought so i can know if i need to clearify, perhaps conclude yourself on my premises so to make it explicit where we diverge. I'm sorry it took this long to see this thread were responded to, but will appriciate some strong cases against mine as i'm sure you can create if you tried. : )

A hardest exam? I presume you mean hardest formal exam, in any case which subject?

Well then it seems we agree, only i would claim the interconnectedness is implicit in the green consciousness.

Absolutely agree, they do not even know that there is a problem. Yet still, do we need all opinions to be legal?

^ the interconnectedness of those are the ethics of green, to not find those radicaly different in utility when fixed is the bottleneck of green. A yellow hierarchy will do for that issue, in which the interconnectedness of all these issues actually diminishes and is restored with a plan for which needs most prioritation, to priority ofcourse is not specific to yellow, but will be done with the common good in mind to further extents, and lesser of egoic virtue ethical ideals. If the time comes and we need to prioritize, do we save the planet or do we make abortion legal to the 24th week?

I think you are doing more then mere rambling, you are certeintly making good points and asking relevant questions But i want you to clearify, on the one hand one can argue the ethics of censoring certain voices on a cartain platform, on the other one may speak of having a policeofficer pointing his gun at you because of your speech, that is the potential within any law not obeyed. On the first one i would deplatform the fuck out of many, many people. But i would let ANY opinion pass on the latter (in western societies). Edit: i would somewhat respect others voting for SOME restrictions on free speech while not doing it myself, other restrictions again i would sense strong repulsion towards.

Can i ask you Leo, when last did you have a red hour? Or do you maybe think that red have no value in lives of those who transcended it beyond green? Not neccesarily caused by exterior stimulus even, altough that would be a far easier answer. : )

I can try, but the chances it will make adequate sense becomes smaller, and the quantity of words multiply. Of all those things i said, the scenario of negatives as positives are the important one. Lets say person A have faith in god, more specific a faith in some creator which within its creation planted all human and elsewise metaphysical potential. Person B says that person A is wrong, for person B believes that the universe had no plan, antithetical to person A, and is therefore a disbelief. Then comes person C along, who do not believe that either is wrong, nor do he believe that either is correct. He believes Person A and B are "uneccesarily" correct, not a disbelief, but a non-belief. When you think someones beliefs are too improper you do not only have "non-belief" of their belief, but you have a disbelief. A disbelief is itself a positive, it is A BELIEF of somethings validity, while a "non-belief" is not, and i add: by its definition. I tried to explain that your disbelief of "meta-narratives" are itself a meta-narrative, if you had only a non-belief of the persons meta narrative you could IMPOSSIBLE conclude that it were improper. Meta narratives are the all "isms", and those that you specifically refuted. edit: Now i could be challanged on many things i have written here, and if something seems off then i welcome you to "destroy" it. : ) edit2: If you take my words as premises you shortly after will be able to conclude that all interactions, all acts, all concepts are derivative of beliefs, further showing you that metanarratives are everywhere. The yellow postmodern beauty is when those are teared down or when many believes are changed with hypotheticals/openmindedness, so that when somebody comes along and tells you they believe death is a construction you can answer: yes indeed it could be, and indeed it could be that it is not. Not NEEDING it to be either or, as you will see many do.

That were my mistake, haha. Should have connected that, for the swedes public sector are indeed somewhat psychotic, stockholm more than any.