Reciprocality

Gender identity is likely the most primal of all, and by extention the most innocent. Innocent in that ones will is it completely numb, so one better accept it and so does anyone else with any reason. I have heard about people being comfortable with their body not extending their identity, and will recomend searching into it on utube for a closer look. If that is not the route then changing the body have also shown to be benefiscial for some, and for others not so much. In either case i hope it works out for you. : )

I would claim nobody can understand that they are alive at all, non less how and why, neccesitated by the nature of understanding as opposed to being. To have a claim, to undestand, to aim, to recognize is all neccesitated by ego both in the lowest of stages and the highest. Only the higher ones fear not loosing it as much and as often. Essence as opposed to Existence is yet another way to conceptualize "I" and "self", and thereby do not exist, or only does so by extention of those essentials turned inwards by means of meditations or pshycadelics. The only thing which exist is what all experience have in common, which is the only alternative to experiences *positive value. *Positive as in quantitative/qualitative, i can add modality altough that will beg some confusion.

JBP with the orange core of egoic responsebility, be ego a self, familial and culture-serving identity.

If the universe is in experience, then the planet>country>house>body>brain>experience is in experience, which means that in experience there is infinite regression of experience (as far as human apprehension of logic is concerned), can science as of 2020 prove this elsewise mathematical neccesary concept? Can an ideal science prove it? Ought one even strive for its proof or do we rather disregard proof as the cornerstone for relative quantification? Alternatively do you disregard the premise of the universe inside experience or the conclusion of infinite regression? If there is no brain then conclusively there is no body/universe either, can science as a neccesary *connexion between brain and universe be done if there is nothing of either? (relevant question only if one claims there is no brain) Is ideal enacted logic itself bottlenecking human knowledge or is human bottlenecking the ideal logic (and not only the one which it usually performes). *by connexion it is meant accidental and supplementary yet neccesary with regards to a totality.

Trump is a lovely man with great humour and a strong sence of leadership, he is the spiritual guru the world needs in times as this and will go down in history second only to Jesus.

It is legal in Switserland, we currently had a wave of debate regarding this issue in Norway and it seemed people in somewhat accidental demographics were split on the ethics of it. The argument against, which came across rather absurd were primarily that the doctors should be pardoned such responsebility (both in the action itself and the judge of the seriousness case by case). Imagine having insane amounts of pain, zero psychological pleasures a functioning arm only to be set for life in that very scenario with close to zero hope for the future due to the emotions of some doctors.

I am not american, so no vote for me. But i would vote Biden if i were, however he stinks as well. And in a kullinksian fashion he is in congruence with his buddies prior 'beyond the pale' and represents radicaly few of those interests a well functioning parlamentary system of these ages would. Its just that Trump is grotesque in 95% of the issues, and can not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the 'pale'.

You are only as smart as you stand it innocent in the face of, therefore it will remain irrelevant wheter the ego has projected onto it. Or rather that you can not deduce the validity nor invalidity of the claim by the actuality of the claim. You can induce by generalities though, but the road from there to cynicism is short if applied to specifics such as the one examplified in the post. I see the first sentence easily induces confusion, but try to look at it in the other way it can be looked at haha.

Subliminal Perception is as the psychologist Carl Rogers put it, though paraphrased: 'a process in which a stimulus is experienced or responded to without being brought into awareness'. I've had some curious experience with imagery ones as such while deep in thought or studying challenging philosophical texts, as the gamer that I am I find myself mapping concepts unto the actual 3D maps I’ve experienced prior to those sessions though subliminal as such, well.. until I became aware of it and started laughing due to the prevalence and frequency by which it had manifested in months and years prior (yet never brought to my actual awareness in the moment before not long ago now). The theory I deduced from there is that the mind spontaneously does this for the betterment of my memory of those various concepts I study, now I find myself from time to time recognizing abstractions by the various coordinates and maps in which they once submerged, which I find quite hilarious when playing games but rather sad if I am the only one. Perhaps i am one of many, in that case i would love to hear some of your experience with it, and if only now you became aware of it then i am glad to open this weird portal for you. : ) I know this have been a theme in memorizing championships, only without the spontaneous sublimity, but rather as a trusted means to victory. Here is a link to a post concerning if not the categorical conclusion of this mechanism then surely a well put text on the visual as it guides man and implications thereof. http://seeingmeaning.blogspot.com/2008/08/visual-philosophy.html

It is coming to my senses now, if i were to be authentic; the totality of all things would tremble. Its ludacris, how one goes about rationalizing ones deception, for surely they are the work of the willing. To which end do these intentions sprung, for me to be liking the precence of people in the era that is now i must reign a war on my inner workings, i must say no thank you to the inevitable manifistation neccesitated by those means. I will write no further with my own sceptic nor that of societal projected scepticism in mind, i see things and thereby creates essence, be those seemingly uncongruent as well as adhering to no seemingly existent entity here nor there. To speak content matter/general identity and *philosophy categoricaly conjoined as though the formers neccesity in logics causalitates that of the latter has mountains of my trajected past stood unclimbed. There is naught an inquiery can provide which hasn't its first cause, seeded in deep flooring of faith, hope, desire, belief and to a categorical conclusion: ego. So i have those insights, yet fooled just the deeper. What is that genuinity i sacrifice all day? And what hides behind it? The mountains are indeed high, there is allways a layer of faith, will reason superseed it, and on which grounds? LESS faith, now what a paradox. When you've seen the moon you need not stare at it for a decade to judge it true, however, it conforms not to rocks of the past, yet your intuition of it falling down in a second as though a rock among the clouds wont either bring fruit. You may say rocks CAN look like they haven't before, that rocks conforms not to its platonic form in EXISTENCE, as a logical premise. But derivative only of uncoscious intuitions, be the content ever so awake to the mind. These intuitions serves our survival, not truth, and by nothing more than the humeian effect of custom will one bet on its adherence to "truth". *Philosophy as the potency which brings it about, as the meta-cognitive sensation of the roots to its conclusions. hello to you