Reciprocality

Finally! And i agree! Everything you said is right on, but i still want to give philosophy all that i have, and why i raised the question if reason could be itself a "synchronical" sensation, and why i see all philosophy and reason as mere incentives to justify emotion. : D Thank you for the respone, appriciate the depth! Edit, i would not see it as the "mistake" of philosophy, the mistake would rather be to the extent one have too high expectations of the utility by which philosphy and reason can justify emotion.

@Michal__ Seeing that purple people indeed do not have red in them how come purple people fight? How come Chimps fighs? Its dominance, a hierarchical structure, and i can sure tell you those chimps are not red. To reconcile this you find mma (in its act) far more primal, and indeed it is, for its the instincts making us survive millions to hundreds of millions years prior to any "red". Now that is the specifics of the act, with regards to the generals of peoples consciousness it would be fallacious to from there deduce them being of any specific consciousness. The professionals COULD be a group destributed primarily around the red end of things, but evidence have shown tendencies to quite the countrary. Some people usage of SD in this thread shows how corrupted such models gets pretty fast. I seek integration of my animal instincts, for in all our lives they are undermined to extreme extents as means to civilization, this is what the model can help a man with.

Yes, you've got it Paul! But what remains is a conclusion, a belief. Eternal recurrence is a derivative of your realization, what do you think about that?

Should try Sam Harris instead, you may need to settle with mere thought experiments, but who knows what may come of it.

Thank you lots, and yes that it indeed could be. You know the reaction you have when someone say something incredibly random? Something not relatable at all? The sensation feels like that reaction, only it FEELS like everything is that "randomeness". And usually it dies of in the matter of seconds. It is very intense.

go for it!

An honest and sincere confrontation seems in its place, i plan on moving out myself, but the time do not seem quite right. Maybe it is smart as Pretty_India adviced: to wait if of?

Okay, well i only wonder because generaly when words are being used absolutely, regarding percieved 'all encompasing' truths, i get sceptical. Simply due to lack of contrasting elements, almost like one is taken by some spell.

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. : )