Reciprocality

@ici I know about the straw that it bends, I know about the thing that it has properties, I know about the house that it it higher than me, about the object that it looks like a chair. There is something that can be said about the "knowing about" which is not ambiguous even though it is a generality, the ambiguity simply dwells in your mind and I Insist that instead of blaming me for it who goes through all this effort precisely to induce forth the distinctness (which i opposite of ambiguity) of "knowing about" try to take ownership of it instead. My answer to my question is that what is known about something is either personal or impersonal, where the former employs past experiences that now is sufficiently similar to present experiences and that this form of knowledge is a developmental necessity already at infancy, while the latter kind of knowledge is the condition for the former and distributes over the domain of which the objects or situations of the former kind of knowledge is composed, such as relative movement. The implications are rich and interesting but I wont go there now.

@ici I am trying to get to the character or distinctness of all "knowing about", there really is no room for ambiguity here and therefore no need to interpret beyond the obvious, contexts, data compression, information leak and percentages simply are other topics. That which is known about something is surely within a context, but some things are so general that their only context could be universal and therefore not really be contextual at all, I am asking about the kind of thing it is that which is known about something else, I am not asking you to just attach a label to this kind of thing but to possibly discover what kind of process all knowing about is part of and potentially necessarily so, this process being so universal that it would be non-contextual.

Isn't body language to our body what rhetorics are to our speech? If that is so and we do both in the same moments for the same reasons all our lives what would happen to the intent that gives rise to assertions (the thing that body-language and rhetorics packages) if we stopped both the body language and the rhetorics? And in the case that intent would then diminish, would that be detrimental to our care for the truth of the knowledge? Said a bit more clearly: if body language and rhetorics exists for the purpose of convincing others only to then gain their cognitive sympathy and intent for making assertions did diminish if we stopped with rhetorics and body language would we stop caring about the truth of the assertion itself? Is it because of a subliminal knowledge of the outlined consequence that we seek for approval and agreement? If the answer is yes then doesn't that imply some amount of feebleness to our "knowledge"?

So let me ask you, if you think there is light then why do you want it away? Also, how often do you remember the things that you have no inclination against or towards? I ask this because if a person could be enlightened then he would need to remember something like that. Edit: Surely you could only want something that is secondary to the thing that wants it? And if enlightenment is primary then how could you want it?

Person implies wanting Light is without wanting So no enlightened person, only moments without wanting

For the benefit of a possible productive conversation the following is commentary on the above theory from perplexity.ai: The Ego as a Mechanism of Rejection and Identity Formation Your view presents a unique and nuanced understanding of the ego's role in relation to unknown information. Let's break this down: Ego as a Rejecting Force In your conception, the ego serves primarily as a mechanism for rejection. It acts as a filter or barrier against information that is not yet ready to be integrated into one's knowledge base. Negative Coherence The key insight here is the idea of "negative coherence." Instead of the ego organizing information positively, it creates coherence through rejection. This rejection gives shape to the unknown by defining what it is not, rather than what it is. Self-Identity Formation This process of rejection is integral to forming the self-identity of the agent. By defining what one does not know or accept, the individual carves out a clearer sense of self. Philosophical Implications This perspective raises several intriguing philosophical questions: Nature of Knowledge: Is knowledge defined as much by what we reject as by what we accept? Identity and Negation: How fundamental is the act of rejection to the formation of personal identity? Cognitive Dissonance: Does this view explain why encountering new, challenging information can be psychologically uncomfortable? Learning Process: If rejection creates negative coherence, how does the transition to positive knowledge occur? Epistemic Humility: Does this understanding of ego and knowledge acquisition promote or hinder epistemic humility? Comparison to Established Theories Your perspective shares some similarities with certain philosophical and psychological concepts: Hegelian Dialectic: The idea of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, where negation plays a crucial role in the development of ideas. Constructivism: The notion that individuals actively construct their understanding of the world, though your emphasis is on construction through rejection. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: The psychological discomfort experienced when holding conflicting ideas, which could be seen as a result of the ego's rejection mechanism. This view of the ego as a rejecting force that creates negative coherence offers a provocative alternative to more traditional views of knowledge acquisition and identity formation. It suggests that our understanding of the world is shaped as much by what we push away as by what we embrace, and that this process is fundamental to who we are as individuals.

@El Zapato But how do we get mulitmillion nations to not be governed by narratives, and if there are no alternative to narratives then mustn't there something underlying narratives that is the true root to the problem of which the narratives are mere symptoms?

I do think there is something going the last couple of years but I haven't travelled the world so I cant say its global, and it could very well be that the change of ones own perspective on things makes one realise that the heightened sense of awareness and empathy were out there all along. I actually think that is the toughest part of the enlightenment journey, to realise that pre-enlightenment you lived in a false narrative of the world and to then deal with the backlash of you yourself having been the main problem all along not everyone else is unbearable. Do you really know that most other people aren't already enlightened in all sorts of ways, what is the process by which you determine so? Would you really have the tools to just know that they do not possess mental states that does not show under the situational context in which you observe them, how often do you meet new people 1on1 to even set the stage for that possibility?

It may not seem like it at first glance but I would argue that the above is actually sufficient for interpreting why there is an epistemic bubble as you put it, if the opinions of the minority were to be effective and the relevant country had something of a democracy then the effect described above of controlling the majority narrative would be a necessity, in which case the appeal to a lower common denominator (for whom judgements concerning personal and vividly remembered novel information were not readily passed) would take a fairly homogenous form.

@Hardkill 1. Because judgements or opinions makes reality orderly, 2. because we remember new information (certainly so far as it connects to our personal identity) with higher intensity than old information, 3. because novel information is chaotic in relation to the rest of our knowledge without a judgement or opinion about that information and lastly 4. because our innate nature is to reduce chaos. Apply the general principles above to the subject of the post "why do the perspectives of a minority of people dominate the public discourse that concerns the majority of people?". The judgements of the minority of people about why novel things are the way they are and what should be done about it reduces the chaotic/neurotic relation it has to people to whom it a. were intensely remembered and b. relates personally and c. who has not thought about it nearly as much as the minority.

@Asia P Its very hard to say without you answering some questions. Are you more than 20 years old? Does the particular case again and again actually inform you of the nature of whole world as well as your own hidden intensions without the slightest doubt to the contrary? Do you thereby connect at all times the appearance of someone with a likely cause for why it is needed and find that this judgement is largely accurate? Do you actually favour truth over happiness even when the former undermines the latter? Are quiet moments alone with your thoughts actually the most valuable moments in your life by a wide magnitude? If the answer to all these are "yes" then you get into the territory at which university and people in general can be even more harmful to your development than not going to university would be to those who would answer "no" to these questions. However, expect immense tradeoffs either way that you wont even be close to imagine beforehand and probably not even afterwards. Independent thinking has the potential to be weirdly superior to the alternative when by the strike of chance it is somehow allowed for, all things that are understood must stand entirely on its own feet as blank point distinct from all others and that distinct point must be a direct path to its own explanation, extension and implication. The desire to achieve something is at every moment antagonistic to the tendency of the mind to think without roundabout paths, for the same reason that all composite identities are necessarily teleological.

It isn't that the beginning was, the beginning is, there is no real division between the beginning and now, and that beginning and you are one and the same on a substantial level, scientists would agree since experiment indicates that though everything changes the apparent substance does not spontaneously arise at any given moment but instead is a later variation of itself. How does everything work? When analysed it works by necessity, since it works by the continuum, and if it did not work by the continuum it would work by spontaneity and literally be random in every way (random upon analysis from within a system built on that spontaneity, but never "random in itself") But the continuity disrupts when we stop analysing, and yet we ask how does everything work independently of our analysis? Something astounding happens when we investigate the origins of our concepts, we find that quantum indeterminacy/randomness as well as curved space-time is expected given the analytical and non-synthetical nature of the concepts of space/time/causality/necessity/simplicity/homogeneity etc, since there is no reason to expect that substances independent of our mind should be governed by concepts we abstract from experiences that are only possible in our mind. Its wild, please read the critique of Pure Reason by Kant.

@1337 Also, you are not supposed to understand math, you are supposed to distinctly identify that mathematical operations in fact work just like you are able to identify all sorts of things merely via their mutual presence in the same space and time. If you are able to understand maths before you are able to ascertain that it works you literally cant be taught the rules that others rely on reach correct conclusions, it would be like excepting a monk to be taught heuristics for cognitive empathy. The mind simply can not fool itself into experiencing novelty where there is none, our whole organism is just an input/output system of the foolproof tendency to intensely fixate on and remember only things it does not already know thus inducing a clearer concept of "the world". If you comprehend the general while everyone else memorises the particular but are forced to do as the others you will experience the same stimuli in your mind as you would if you were asked to repeatedly call an object by its name. All this is an incomplete picture until you introduce the tendency for self-identity, as only in the enjoyment of self-love do people actually get stimulated merely by what they already know, though only under the conditions that others are present since here the knowledge becomes a implication of who one is as opposed to just being what it is.

@1337 Im sorry that I did not write the following any better, this is simply how I think about it and I cant change it. Certain things are either is 0 dimensional or dimensional. A variable is insufficiently particular dimensional unit, only 0 dimensional points are invariant or unitarily particular irrespective of further context. All things with dimension instantiate the concept of a variable if the thing gets projected into a coordinate, a triangle is a composite of 1 dimensional lines therefore a triangle is a variable relative to a metric. Imagine that you walk at the same speed on a path from a to b and there are several cameras that focus on you while you walk that path, can you visualise why each camera must by necessity change the rate at which it rotates if it successfully has you in focus? Of course. Do you see how the square in the illustration above slows down the closer it gets to the surface of the circle? It is for the inverse reason that the cameras in the example above did (the relation of the constant and the variable is reversed, in the illustration above it is the rotation that is constant), this inversion is a feature not a problem because it means that when it comes to expressing it in terms of symbols you can simply change x/y to y/x. How could the movement of that square be anything but half of what it would have been if instead of being governed by a shape that extends equally horizontally and vertically it were governed by a shape that extended infinitely less vertically thus half in total? The most general principle of geometry, trigenometry, algebra and all of math is often not distinctly recognised, it is that everything is relative to everything else, that it is this relativity we are expressing by means of ratios (percentages/division/multiplication) and that this simply follows from how all inputs in a syntactical system whether it is a coordinate or algebraic rules followed from left to right is a totality and that for change in one element of the input to not accompany an equal change in the others one must always input something more than the totality.

You distinguish consciousness in two different contexts and words are not typically made for that kind of task, what is for instance both opposed to elevated and tricky or integrated and low? Luckily there is some inherent similarity between the two things that are distinct from consciousness, that is: their causal continuity, "death" or most precisely "non-positivity". When we observe a fly crashing with the window we immediately notice about it something different from the dust particles that flies around it, and we call that distinct characteristic spontaneity. When we reflect on our own existence we find a continuous absence and presence of motive or will followed by a sense of identity but we never find a preceding reason for the motive or the will just like how we did not find any preceding reason for the movement of the fly we were observing. We connect the behaviour of the fly and our own motive before we even get to think twice about it because we can not fail to know that they are opposed to the necessitated effects (causal continuums) that exists outside them, verify it yourself.

It is often the case that the more something resists change the more it prone to change other things and the more prone something is to change the less it can change other things This can be observed in a million different situations, humans have for thousands of years observed this not only in the relation between physical forces but also in their own and others psychological behaviour and one of the consequences are the concepts of femininity and masculinity we carry with us today. That masculine energy we immediately notice in men is their resistance to change via the rigidity in their situational judgement that gives rise to their tendency to independently assert themself into the environment. The feminine energy is equally immediately noticeable in most women, there is here a tendency to withhold situational judgements due to a higher sense of subtlety and more distinct ideation of socially acceptable behaviour thus lesser need to assert themself independently. @Javfly33 It is hard to understand our own instincts but it could be worth the trouble and especially so if it can impact major decisions in life like pursuing enlightenment or not, so ill ask you what is the mechanism whereby you feel good in the presence of someone with the feminine characteristics I outlined above? Can it be a feeling of a form of validation about your tendency of asserting your perspectives and judgements that only someone with those feminine characteristics could provide you and ultimately a sense of your own identity that only comes forth under those feminine conditions?

So satire then?

@Husseinisdoingfine If you both have 1. a higher-order perspective thus judgement on the situations you are in and 2. a highly developed conscience for validity or truth and 3. your perspective on things are substantially different from your peers in measurable ways then how could you not be more occupied with testing the validity of your perspectives upon perception of relevant situations than distinctly identifying symbolic methods of expressing rules, structures and principles, aren't peers the very substance of your sociological interest?

Have you identified precisely why you failed the calculus course? You say that you do poorly on calculations, there can be several reasons for this and if your mind naturally thinks holistically it is more prone to gain insight into things without relying on step-by-step computations and simply develop syntactical immunity (failing to think a thing indirectly via a symbol or system that is not that thing). When it comes to oscilating between remembering and failing to remember what you studied the day before this is very likely due to other things occupying your mind subconsciously, which I would imagine being a far more prevalent problem for people who have the kind of meta-cognisant and antagonistic perspective on how society operates that people on actualised have. It is very possible that the life-situation you are in and the ongoing search for the implication or deeper meaning of things you perceive makes remembering indirect systems, symbols and structures nearly impossible, simply because your mind subconsciously direct your attention to the former kind of thing due to how much more truth and growth it knows rests inside it than the latter.

It is not the question why particular things exists and it is not the question of how particular things relate to other particular things. It is not the question of why there is something as opposed to nothing. It is the mystery of why the whole thing that exists, which we call the universe, begun the way it did and not in another way, even if the only alternatives are quantitatively different (how could they be anything else?).

I am playing the character of "me", but why is that character there? And what kind of thing is that character? If we could know what kind of a thing it is could we know about that kind of thing that its possibility or contingency arises within it and that it could therefore never fail to be, could not be contingent on anything different from it? What kind of a thing am I?

@Buck Edwards Appreciate the Philosophical references! And it is hard not to get overexcited when someone references Kants works. There does not need to be a transcendental unity of apperception, for one because possibility itself is sufficiently accounted for by investigation into its meaning (there is no reason why that which is possible should be prior to what is actual) and secondly because of Kants own argument against transcendent beings posited to exist merely via a form of induction whether these be God, nothingness, randomness, substance, soul or possibility etc. In better terms: the a priory status of Kants Categories and the derivability of the concept of those categories from mere sensory stimuli (which I believe I can argue for) makes the status of those concepts (in so far as they are to be employed as a priori principles in arguments) transcendent and metaphysical, at which point knowledge of them becomes subject to the same scrutiny under which he himself placed the concepts of God, Substance and Soul via a variation of the problem of induction or the problem of synthetic a priori judgements.

Trump accepted the interview because of how Lex conducts them, to expect Lex to ask tough questions with tough follows ups is effectively to ask that Trump only gets interviewed by rightwing media and very likely to expect Lex to change as a person.

Yes

How many layers of intension does your mind go through just to produce a comment? And how poorly would we deal with life if it were not second nature to conceal them?