Reciprocality

@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.

How does it work that when you are not well making vague assertions about "life itself" being this or that way helps you? We suffer because something is wrong with our body, our self-identity, mind or situation in general or because we are not able to figure out what is wrong in the first place or because we do not have discipline enough to enact the solution. I have learned discipline and integrity, I do not fool myself into thinking that I love myself or love anything if my actions do not tell that story. It is not a vague idea of life in general but instead my past actions that tells me what suffering is.

To the extent we say that an object is the purpose we associate with it is the extent to which you go beyond its identity, you can not be naive in your assertion that a rock exists independent of your perspective, you can only be naive in thinking that its purposes pertains to its independency. This is not to say that a rock could exist independent of beings who have perspectives.

If I feel angry, disgusted, sad, remorseful, bad in general, I will analyse the likely causes for these things, generalise the effect, justify its existence and lastly avoid similar situations. This makes me flat and grey, it makes life flat and grey at times too, but I do not enjoy living from a subjective first person perspective. The last year I could no longer roll the same game as I did before, with that purely abstract thinking that I did day in and day out in the four years before then, my mind needed balance to not be depressed. In other words: I live subjectively and with a minimum of emotions as an instrument for my actual goals, which continues to be objective knowledge. When I look around me I see people whose self-identity is the utmost extent of what reality is capable of, I do not hear a single statement from them that does not fit neatly into their character, I do not see a play, a wonder or an objective engagement with things for no purpose at all. All I see are people whose actions reflects an ongoing self-consistency test, which I have no doubt is the operation of a universal psychological law. I feel some form of sorrow for others being this way, also for myself to the extent I have to too, but I also wonder if it is me who is missing out.

@Carl-Richard I appreciate the productive engagement! Naive realism can not be decoupled from a perspective that asserts its to be false, in my line of thinking the "subjective way of life" which you fairly accurately interpreted as naive realism is necessarily absurd, or self-contradictory. We are probably talking about the same behaviour or tendency, but my criticism of this tendency should be falsifiable, while the critiques of naive realism I am aware of either introduces no alternative by skeptical doubt (Descartes) and inference fallacies (Hume), introduces ridiculous concept-instincts (Kants Categories and a priorities), are unfalsifiable by beginning from definitions or concepts (Bertrand Russel and modern philosophy in general) or reintroduces the same problem in new clothing by rejecting reality altogether (George Berkley). I have listened to a lot of stuff coming from the d-man myself over the years and can confirm that he is very meta-cognisant of the difference between his beliefs and the world itself, the reason he has come across this way is that he relies on first principles and logic. But I have no doubt that he too falls into the category of "living subjectively", if for instance I were to ask Destiny what the life itself is that he wishes political power to benefit he would likely have no way to do depict it yet be entirely certain that there is an "it" there to depict in the first place and declare thereby defeat, in which case he actually would think that his own concept of life is substantial or predicable and not a predicate. (to make a ridiculously silly way to capture this problem concretely imagine what a human looks like to a rock, it certainly would not be life-like) We may for simplicity's sake say that there are degrees of naiveté of ones reality-awareness, where at the peak we have the person who is able to confirm his own opinions of others by derogatory speech and on the other end (or least severe) the belief that reality itself can be identified by our conception of it. What I am saying here are just assertions, but when it gets to actually justify these assertions (or interpreting them correctly) we get into an extremely heavy conceptual topic, that is the nature of the game, and I apparently do not know how to make it accessible despite having tried for hundreds of hours in various media, it is the nature of the game. If i were challenged to argue it here Id hint at it involving what some places goes by the name holism, some places rationalism or even monism, or to appeal overly to the audience: self reference. I am probably a bit Nietzscheian when it comes to this topic, everyone is correct about reality because reality literally becomes through our perspectives, and this continues to be the case even when we are aware of it. Yet, now diverging from the German, there must be something which precedes the reality that our minds create, due to which we can see and think and about which, now converging with Kant, we could never know anything. To not create contradictions I need to make further distinctions, unfortunately making thereby what were intended as a short and concise response tangential and overly complex, it is not that everyone are correct about verifiable reality, but that reality is in the mind of the agent a product of the item's non-verified state yet the naive agent thinks ingeniously that reality awaits him to verify it. Ill definitely write some of this in Norwegian if the english did not suffice, if my paragraphs do not appear to cohere then kindly reply to those that do, now to the conclusive remarks. Take a random person of the street, they would be correct about nearly every aspect of existence, because realism is correct about these things (a rock is a rock because the whole is contained in the part through objective identification, the personal will can not affect this process), it only appears naive to fellers who weirdly begun to reduce memory to logic (and begun to expect that reality should conform to it in every respect) when the reduction goes the other way around, nothing is logical except through reference to our many forms of memories. A dog and a man experience the same rock, because that part of the mind which identifies things is decoupled from the part of the mind which contextualises it, I did not intend for this to get into the Mcgilchrist split brain hypothesis territory but looky here.

@Carl-Richard The typical meaning of living subjectively could be exemplified by a person living in the modern western world who has no explanation of the needs for government, someone who do not distinguish between their own unconfirmed beliefs and reality or someone who secures their own beliefs about someone by calling them names (you have probably been witness to the last one many times). I mean something more general, something that people who fit into the opposites of the above examples can be subject to as well. My assertion is that you live subjectively even when the world-concept you possess on an ongoing basis (as a background to whatever you are engaging with at that moment) is thought to be the world itself or resemble it very closely, I find this to be very frequent, we may both do it right now without being aware.

@universe Thank you, and weirdly it may be that simple. For years on end my body would react against my obsessive thinking, by for instance making me want to go to the toilet even if I already went there, I started noticing these impulses happening so often that I could begin to predict it as soon as my mind got into a new line of thought, it implied to me that my body were not in agreement with this much energy spent solving problems yet I kept going and going until it impacted my mental health negatively and could no longer think sufficiently fast etc. If I would have continued to force it and continue caring very little about my self the depression would have hit far harder. So in periods I did take your advice universe and will try to do it even more than mere minimum going forward.

Right now I have an idea of that which goes on outside of the house I am sitting in, almost everything in this idea is inferred. Most people undoubtedly think that their equivalent idea is the literal world itself (you probably think so too, some of you even make it a spiritual achievement to think so) and have thereby access to a purely subjective way of life. I do not know what to do, I can not decide whether to continue to infer the behaviour of reality based on experiences or begin to live life with myself in focus. You may say that these two are not mutually exclusive but that will be a statement that requires investigation. The emotion of minimum enjoyment falls outside of the scope above since one could live as archaically, immaturely, egoically and personally as possible as well as living as objectively and sagely as possible without some minimum of enjoyment caused by unification with parts of our past such as through perception changing thereby.

If everything here sounds abstract without practical or pragmatic implications then consider the following: If upon investigation we find that the self is not real what we may actually mean is that it does not instantiate the identity of reality, without that meaning that it is not a part of reality. The sentence above written in purple can make the widely known concept of "no-self" more comprehensible, it highlights potential ambiguities contained in your conceptualisation of it. Upon further analysis we may find that the identity of reality compliments the identity of the self, are you aware of how important it is to maintain a healthy complimentary relationship between the two? That the alternative is literally infantile? The self is a part of something which everything except itself instantiates, yet none of the things that instantiates reality is possible without the self. Have you not wondered why you can look in any direction, hear any sound, think any thought and find it all to be on some level identical?

We know that certain things/identities can belong to the category they do not instantiate, let me ask you this, are additions/conjunctions/coincidences/associations/correlations examples of this? And if not, could there be real non-mathematical examples of this? An example of a thing that belongs to the category it does not instantiate is a three dimensional mathematical object, it is insufficient to instantiate the fourth dimension yet it must belong to it. If we can confirm or deny that every/some two conjunctive identities pertain to a category they do not instantiate this would have deep philosophical roots and implications specifically in relation to the century old duality of rationalism and empiricism.

I am literally talking about the difference between essential and accidental attributes in the language of containment and knowledge Essentiality maps to sufficiency, instantiation, division, rationalism, self-distribution, homogeneity, identity, linearity and simplicity. Accidental maps to insufficiency, inclusion, addition, empiricism, externalised-distribution, heterogeneity, non-identity, bifurcation and complexity. In some ways and not in other ways. It even maps to conservatism/liberalism and self/reality, but if you insist on thinking about these concepts for the complexities of the things they refer to then it will be impossible to draw the connections.

Whichever angle I come at things from I appear to end up in the same place over and over and over again, its wild.