Reciprocality

Take a walk together in a new surrounding where you discuss the topic of how well you two fitted together before the sudden unfortunate events, this should contribute to making a decision on what to do next in your relationship that will be less subject to emotional variation over the next few weeks. You should probably have some distance from each other too, if here is cause for any genuine remorse or guilt then it is far more likely to come forth after some time when the mind is done processing all the sudden changes. You mind is made to be obsessive about major life changes, Mooji has provided me comfort too because sometimes I need more time to deal with things but don't be fooled into thinking that "enlightenment" will evaporate those problems suddenly, this because enlightenment is a lifelong journey which is bottlenecked by your psychological and emotional constitution.

@UnbornTao I don't think he were looking for a magic pill, I think he were looking for methods that makes a mountain of a task shrink by not having to brute force ever aspect of it.

damnit

@Nilsi I appreciate that you push me to try to write more comprehensibly. We can likely all agree that @Carl-Richard is onto something about the distinction between knowledge and intelligence, and perhaps that in the general modern culture there is little clarity of that distinction and their relationship, in that we so often come to infer someones intelligence or lack thereof merely from their existence of their knowledge. I propose one way to clarify the distinction of these concepts through the statistical average of how small a section of a whole someone needs to determine the identity of that whole. I acknowledge that this is an counterintuitive approach to measure intelligence since it is in fact knowledge-based, I will come back to this counterintuitive problem in section b below. I underpin the above proposition by .. a. pointing out the necessary condition for any intelligence (situational memory), and that there is no difference between that memory base and the whole we imagine when it is identified through its parts, I validate this condition in my own experience by discovering the presence of situational memory in the meaning of all that I am thinking and allow myself to generalise from there. b. pointing out that the less is required for someone to identify x (a generality, a concept, an identity or a whole) the more space they will have available for those xes, I do not provide evidence for this assertion as I find it terribly plausible. c. pointing out that the more space is available for xes the more relationships one can see between them, the quicker the transition between them, the more mutual exclusion thus clarity of them and the more distinct from specialised knowledge they will be thus the easier to distinguish from any such specialised knowledge. These are not theorems, nor are they comprehensive theories, they are falsifiable assertions that ideally get subject to statistical methodology when attempted falsified, until then we explore its plausibility and test it against the scrutiny of our own memory and imagination. If we introduce problem solving into the mix (which is indeed the true mark of intelligence) we must suddenly account for a persons heuristics and cultural background and general tendency to actually think in terms of problems (unless you can show me why we don't need to, I will take it as a given), without accounting for those we would easily end up with the smartest people around near the bottom, since their ability to recognise wholes through parts are so extreme that they rarely ever had to solve any problem or potentially never even considered them as problems developing thereby a very limited set of problem solving skills. Perhaps these can be considered right brained?

This is like saying, "the faster you move through an art museum, the faster you can go do other things." There is actually a rather fitting Drake lyric about this mindset of spectacle: „I know a girl whose one goal was to visit Rome Then she finally got to Rome And all she did was post pictures for people at home 'Cause all that mattered was impressin' everybody she's known“ @Nilsi Certainly, and if I say that exercising gives better endurance it is like saying that you ought to become an olympic athlete. The implication in the art museum statement is that there is something you miss out on by passing through it, both the existence or absence of an equivalent situation what regards the generality of parts and wholes is independent of the meaning of the merely falsifiable assertion you responded to, that the less of a whole is required to identify it the more space is available for other wholes. Isn't it interesting that instead of responding to the way the more literal interpretation of my reply relates to its relevant discussion your alternative interpretation in both deviating from that relation and entirely overshadowing it by introducing your own mind-associations informs me that you are literally just speaking with that part of yourself you require to imagine other people. The irony is that the way you reply by going miles beyond its literal meaning sees a whole through a part, though in this case the relation between the two is a fictional subsumption of the part (my assertion about the increased space for wholes the less of a part is required to identify them..) to a whole (..the normative interpretation that therefore one ought to identify as many wholes and hast through as many parts as possible), instead of moving soberly in the reverse direction by analysing the actual statement, which would be very like your supposed point of spending time in an art museum instead of hasting through it.

Something is spontaneous if when it happens it does not happen as an inert effect of external processes in their mutual medium. First of all I will take it as a given that you understand that spontaneity and non-spontaneity are real separable entities or continuums, that all distinct things or processes in your life is an instant of either of the two concepts. I believe we can exemplify four distinct types of spontaneities: 1. bigbang, though really the universe as a whole "from beginning to end" (spontaneous creation of substance and their diminution via insufficient space, thus the formation of a higher-dimensional space-time continuum via their co-ordered bifurcation) 2. biological emergence (spontaneous creation of action and reaction to stimuli within simultaneity to it via intensive and dispersed sensorial continuums) 3. sufficient similarity/proximity between experience and memory (spontaneous creation of representation of the past upon sufficient similarity to the present, linked to: the item of Wittgenstein's family resemblance, Humes bundle theory, pluralism, empiricism, imprecision, correlation, categorical containment, addition, 1:(insert irrational number), condition for inductive methods) 4. self construction via self-correction (spontaneous instantiation of identities and proportioned spontaneous ideation of identities due to dissociation upon any form of non-instantiation, linked to: Leibniz indiscernibility of identity, monism, epistemic rationalism, proportionality, precision, a given quantity in relation to its identity, correspondence, 1:1, condition for deductive methods) My question in this thread will be whether there exist any spontaneities that does not pertain to these four categories, whether any of them are false or whether some of them are redundant. The non-spontaneous equivalent to each of the four must be instantiated for each of them to be more than mere concepts (for otherwise their spontaneous nature would at best be defined into existence through logic via solutions to the contradictions that happens in their absence, I should then give two hypothetical alternatives the latter of which assumes a minor form of realism via synthetic application of predicates: 1. Kants noumena, 2. sensorial stimulus, 3. absence of sufficient similarity/proximity (sensorial stimulus) and 4. absence of self (sensorial stimulus, possibly sufficient similarity/proximity in the mindstate of a monk). That something can be a spontaneity and a non-spontaneity at the same time (spontaneous biological emergence of sensorial stimulus and non-spontaneous sensorial stimulus, is not a contradiction but a direct and necessary feature of multiplicity of spontaneity-kinds. As an aside: I believe the lower numbers really includes the higher ones, but conceptually the relationship is reversed.

@Nilsi No but I would be happy to entertain an analysis of what I wrote suggesting that I did say so. Beethovens symphony is both 1. a multitude of sensorial stimuli and 2. an overlay of perceptions of beauty, enjoyment, emotion and even meaning that varies to some extent between people. Each sensorial portion of the piece will be a part of a whole that the listener identifies via their memory, and this is what the text you quoted takes as undeniable.

Only allow yourself to be confident about what you have learned if you can present it without external aid. (beware that this will be far more draining than the alternative) Be aware that your mind recalls things more vividly the more novel and distinct they are (the more dissonance they cause your knowledge base when you are confronted with them). Meditate beforehand, learn to zone out of yourself when you memorise, your self will come back to you when you need to think about what you remember. Be aware of the difference between associations and abstraction, you want to avoid abstracting when you learn particular things if your mind is made to forget particulars in favour of generals, I believe it is. Yet your mind will need to associate these particulars to one another to recall them effectively, focus on associations between these particular dataoids by creating maps with lines etc between them, this utilises your spatial reasoning to form memories, I believe spatial reasoning is 99% of almost all of ours mental capacity, there is virtually no limit to how much we can recall by utilising it. (if the barest of animals can do it so can you) Edit: the second and third advice are a bit paradoxical, zoning out of ourself in favour of better recall may not be doable if the information is very semantic-based, and if it were possible it may fail to cause sufficient dissonance for us to recall it. I cant solve this paradox atm but hope the advices carry some weight regardless.

Analogical thinking is intuition plus origination. If an item A and its identity is similar to an item B and its identity then how did you spot that similarity? The answer is that you originate a more general conception than the one which pertains to either item alone, if it pertains to both, since they were not identical, then the conception has no singular essence (family resemblance of Wittgenstein), while if it truly pertains to neither then its referent is elsewhere, differently mediated or non-real. Intuition is not just when you solve a hard problem without knowing how, it is there when you imagine the world as you wake up or when you imagine the lawn before you open the door. Analogy is heightened intelligence, since not only is the whole seen through the part but a new whole is created by two or more distinct ones (parts). It follows from their nature that we do not cash in on our analogies before much later in life. Edit: A rotten analogy is when the two items are already identical, or when you already have a word for their similarity.

There is no intelligence without the archaic form of knowledge called situational memory. Memories are the touchstone we test propositions against, it is even the subject of most of our propositions. Intelligence is the ability to identify things, when you see a tenth of your toothbrush you can identify the whole thing, why? Because your memories informs you of the whole when you see the part, but why? Could we answer that question by analysing the toothbrush? And if not must we then analyse its identity in the absence of its object? How little of the toothbrush do you need to see to identify it? How little of the person do you need to see to have an unchangeable conception of them? How much do you need to partake in society to spot not only the differences between individual people but also their cultural or innate commonality without having any other society to compare with? How often are you informed of the similarity between something in your vision and something of your past? The more such questions we ask the closer we get to a mean of them, this is our general intelligence, and as Carl-Richard stated, it is independent of any particular knowledge base. The less information is required for you to see the whole the more space will be available in your mind to see a bunch of wholes.

I should probably provide context why I believe that as opposed to the relation between physical phenomena in their mutual medium such as matter and gravity the relation between a self and an intelligible stimuli in heir mutual medium is spontaneous. The former (physical) effect is inert and besides the total medium is identical to the sum of all of both (the gravity and the matter). The latter (phenomenal) is certainly not inert and besides the total medium (phenomenal medium) comprises many more things than the sum of both (many more things than the intelligible perception and the self). Again, it is true that the physical relations in the former medium correlates and possibly causes the inscrutable relations of the latter (such as that nothing in the composition of words on a page and the meaning we find in them could by themself cause the reaction we have to them), but spontaneity is a concept with an essence that is directly abstracted from real things that are complimentary to other real things, there is no doubt about its application to the things without which we would not even conceive of its meaning, but there is doubt about its application to other kinds of things, such as the universe as a whole. Also, if we have a comprehensive map of the variables in both mediums there arises contradictions in the identities of the former variables if a different effect occurs than the one which does, while the latter medium is not even subject to the possibility of that contradiction.

@LastThursday This is why the definition which involves the medium between the occurrence and its exteriors were used, and this definition is the one which ensures that the concept of spontaneity and its compliment is actually instantiated by real examples, which first becomes a problem in relation to the universe as a whole, are you suggesting that it becomes a problem in relation to any of the other categories? quote 2: "As for point 3 I'd say the mechanism which creates an impression of the present (moment) is the same which creates memories of the past. a1: The apparent separation of the two is only that of categorisation - memories of the past are in fact still the present moment - the difference is only in quality in some way. a2: You could argue that this mechanism is the source of all spontaneity, and that the whole of reality is actually "something uncaused" every single moment." a1: When I said that the spontaneity of memories and the non-spontaneity of direct experience (sensory stimuli) are different this did not imply that the mechanism which once created memories of our past and the mechanism which creates an impression of the present moment is different, why did you think so? I am not discussing that topic, whether or not their difference is qualitative or not is irrelevant to whether or not we can affirm or deny the spontaneity of memory upon sufficient similarity to a present experience. Id be happy to discuss your assertion elsewhere on the basis that it has no bearing on my assertion, or on the condition that you can provide a plausible connection. a2: If it came to you actually arguing a2 above then surely it contradicts what you said bolded in the first quote? I refer to the statement that a spontaneity in general could actually be something inscrutable. quote 3: "Points 2 and 4 fall into the something inscrutable camp, in other words life (and identity) can be accidentally bootstrapped from other processes - self-correction is actually a loop of information flow, these loops can spontaneously form but are not necessarily mysterious." How is it inscrutable that an agent owing a self-identity is asked to do something that does not correspond to that identity that agent will spontaneously experience dissonance and spontaneously correcting for it that is absent in the complimentary case? In the case you were correct that accidental bootstrapped self-correcting mechanisms pertaining to identity did precede and cause their real existence, albeit indeterminately so such that they were inscrutable, why would this be relevant to whether they were medium-relatively spontaneous?

you are what the objects become when it appears that the objects are how you identify them when you are separated from the purpose for which objects are identifiable you disappear too (you were made towards that precise purpose)

I will try to reverse the order of the argument if it helps. When we understand the meaning of the concept of emergence better, or see more and more examples of things for which reason the concept exists, we can see how a top-down system of governance functionally contradicts that emergent process. That which emerges from something else does not need to exist in the parts it emerges from, is more than each of the parts taken separately or even collectively. A political system on the other hand must re-distribute the glue which holds it together into the minds of its followers, complimenting the behaviour of emergence precisely. A community of integrated spirituality has no ultimate purpose because spirituality is to be left only with the means itself to achieve what everyone else needs to maintain their respective self, left only with these means (knowledge, concepts, friendships, sensorial receptivity, whatever) in the absence of the wish to achieve anything through them the spiritualists discovers that these means are ends in themselves, are in fact the ultimate end, or perfection. Such a community will form its own unique behaviour, and that is as far as our knowledge of its politics goes because we are nothing like it.

I will make the above clearer by elucidating on the following question, are you doubtful whether the good old political systems operate on the same program as conceptual schematics and logic? In the case they do operate very similarly and conceptual systems judge/determine particular concrete situations by force (subsumption), then surely a spiritualist who no longer judges situations as literally being this or that way will only politicise themself through action that harmonise with those of a similar nature? Without a society where the majority are such a spiritualist there will only be possible for a political power dynamic operating on agreement of what the world is and what should be achieved, in a society of spiritualists on the other hand (spirituality according to the exposition in the first paragraph in my first comment) there are no truth, no grand narrative and no telos, instead there would be emergent expressions based on the peace and harmony between each agent made possible simply though the genuine integrity of each of them. To believe that you can have a spiritual top-down political system is amusing, a fairytale and historically illiterate.

If all there is left are the means for achieving untempting ends meaning inverts on itself, the medium for achievement couples with the closest thing there are to those ends, nay, the end (purposes) are seen directly in those very things. Spiritual politics are bottom upwards, it is bottlenecked by the nature of the bottom and the more detailed behaviour of such a political system could necessarily not be predicted through the theories you elicited in your post.

just listen

I can not help it, there are two ways of going about my initial statement in the thread (and therewith the seed to the rest), either you believe that I were presupposing the existence of the separation I conceded to exist only in imagination (this perspective would be very popular in the general actualised community) or you respond affirmatively to my last question posed above about the eternity of separations (stating it as an ontological primitive). This ontological primitive would exist prior to your imagination, your imagination would only be an instance of the rule. The only way such an eternity could be true is if I am separate from others within it, and the only way it could be false is if I or also a limited number of others are the only existing things. Culture is that which conceals this eternity from you, as it conceals that you are a part of that eternity. But why is it that it is able to do so? I believe the answer to this is that you need your sense of self, and it gives that to you by saying that you are a part of something different than the eternity of separations. Your true identity is concealed because it feels absolutely horrible to lose yourself. This community is no different than any other in this regard, it gives you the sense of self you need.

If I try to uncover that about the totality of my existence which is purely perspectival I find instead that my perspectives and the things that I have perspectives on are inseparable. They can in other words only appear separated in my imaginations, and that this is possible implies that in my imaginations I conceive versions of "perspective" and "reality" that are false replicants. Why would I think that the false replicants were not false before and during the attempt to uncover the purely perspectival?

When we discover that such things are necessary logically we are bound to ask whether they is metaphysically necessary too. My last question then is this: is imagination or separation a metaphysical necessity, is separation something which will happen eternally?

My answer to my question posed in the post is that imagination and separation is identical such that not only do you have the separation of reality and perspective in your imagination but an alternative to this is impossible. Edit: if the alternative is impossible then the imagination of the separation between perspective and reality is necessary.

So it turns out that replicant did not mean what I thought it did, what I mean is "duplicate" functioning as a "replacement".

@Bobby_2021 Historical wisdom has given us a neat word for what we are talking about, the word is "judgement", "understanding" implies correctness, you have not understood that which you are incorrect about while a judgement refers to your relation with that which you may or may not have understood. You make a good point about judgements holding information together in memory, it could easily lead to a conversation about the nature of the self and spontaneity, as these four categories ties neatly together and changes in how they operate together over time especially in developing years.

I have been writing in essays in aphoristic style to myself since January 2020, my propensity to recall particular situations from my past days and weeks is not even a tenth of what it were prior to that. At times this has been frustrating and emotionally draining, but I suspect more and more that it is a function of already given limited resources that were shifted into new tasks. If you engage a nine year old in discussion you may pick up on their propensity to recall rapidly situations from their past week, you may remember being this way yourself, they simply do not have a richly developed interconnected structure of judgements available to them, instead they have the necessary precursor for it, would it be contrived to hypothesise that when the structure of judgements are so rich that the written word wills itself out of you perpetually that the spontaneous recall of the particular things to which those judgements applies have no longer the same use case? That this impairment of our memory happens even with the very phrasing of those words you use to express those judgements? Another angle to the issue is the difference between writing things down immediately after having conceived of them and thinking them through in your head (when this is possible) before writing them down, this difference could be more relevant to the thread, from experience I have found that the insight comes back to me more often and with a higher intensity when I do this.