Reciprocality

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.

Sounds very healthy to be that aware of ones assimilation prosess, than again, it will lead to potent identity crisis. Which take many orange people out.

To try to kill another by means of arms, feet and hands are indeed low consciousness, in its doing. Now if you avoided lower conscious activities alotogether you would die in an instant. What one presumably would like to do is finding those insights in any conscious rank so to further live a LIFE. "no mma because lower consciousness" is fallacious to the degree begging of question is fallacious, what i will ask you is what about the act of trying to kill another is so "bad" that it undermines the positives which can be shown to come out of it? Or is it "bad" only for those which positives do not follow thereafter, in which case your overall sentiment presumably would be changed.

And then again, so are you doing concluding on the subject matter at all. It can not be otherwise. This is a postmodern fallacy of expectations, YOU are the one expecting something rigid, definable, understandable, categorical, stratificational for knowledge to BE at all, its only that truth adheres not to your rules. This is postmodernism being the ultimate materialism, dualism, empericism, epistemological realism, by a simple fallacy of expectation. The yellow postmodernist will understand that he can not conclude a positive due to those negatives, some of the french philosophers understood this, and would never have claimed any set abstractions (in its relation to any other set) to be "neccesary" or "neccesarily not", only "not neccesarily". There is ofcourse a second layer to it, in which the "not neccesarily" itself is questioned as "not neccesarily", giving place for epistemological absurdism. Which can function as premises for ethical absurdism, and make one nihilistic.

I think the tax funded public secotor in the us is a monstreously stabile and steady collective, i do not see your comment direct relation to mine and nor do i think it it will collapse any time soon. Psychosis would be a designation begging thousand questions while the nihilism one begges but a few. It seems anti liberation of speech-therefore thought is coming to stay, atleast for 20/30 years, and we better suck it up.. taking responsebility for the REASONS it came. Edit, that is to say: to make the many unequal outcomes in our societies to a lesser extent derivative of unequal oppurtunity, and to the furthest extent the result of those disinterested, apathetical to their place in the world. This is ofcourse an immensly hard task, but one we can not afford giving up on.

Lots of good advices, "tunnel vision" is a word dependant on 'negative relatives/relations', for example that one as you assume judge mma more 'beautiful' due to it NOT being any one of those others. I judge it most beautiful because 1. all these other modes of fighting get intelectualized as superior to eachother within it and 2. that one goes as already said 'for the kill' which is the equlibrium to many of the techniques which are mere means. The sport is half human half animal, it has the name of "mixed martial arts" but would better be called "the peak of all martial arts combined/the peak of human survival", would sound rather weird but i am after truth not utility, if that can even be done. Many of those other sports are in themselves, i find, rather boring, because of the constructed baundraries which makes due to perfection of techinques but very little beige survival. However, BJJ is in its techinques alone quite spectacular, and in its own non-letality beautiful in another way. Now i may be struck by tunnel vision, but seems to be a say begging a thousand questions. I am not planning on making this a career, a hobby would suffice.

If that is so could you tell me one place in which his mind is not open, clear, nuanced and inspiering? Merely qurious, i haven't looked him up yet so.

Impro theathre sounds like psychology 101, as you perhaps alluded to : P

Instead of creating the life i wanna live i would try to live the life i wanna create, you know, not putting 'the cart before the horse'.

Pure insanity to make such a thing illegal, to an ultimate extent suicidal and nihilistic.

Go for it, crystalized spatial inteligence is completely undermined in all standard formal education i know of. If it were either a movie or a game like fortnite the choice is pretty simple. The childs mind will spontaneously try to fix relatable problems as he do not play the game, which self-evidently is a great thing. This regards all games ofcourse, by definition, but most games hits a point of diminishing returns, the returns of creative games like fortnite however will diminish paralell only to the one playing it. Or rather, the one subjected to the game becomes the bottleneck of the game. : )

Knowing would not hurt, but beliefs will make due for second place

Haha one better look out for those types i presume. I think you have a deluded idea of this sport though, it is not that they are more animal than they are human, they engage in one act, as described in the thread which stimulates their innate animal. Some do indeed embody anger and frustration in their general persona, while the majorty from what i have seen seems absurdly normal, while other again have deep respect for their oponents AS fellow humans. (edit: this in congruence with any developmental stage, as well as conscious, though the destribution will be skewed toward the shorter end of sticks) I think it is a good advice you are giving however, for one to be careful threading in to the sport unexperienced.