Reciprocality

The dual opposite without which the above statement would be empty or meaningless: A subject without context can only be analytically predicated—tautologically described—since, in the absence of delimiting conditions, no falsifiable claims arise, no predicates mutually exclude one another, and the subject’s “properties” collapse into purely definitional generalities whose overlapping instantiations extend everywhere.

Context is the totality of material conditions that (i) render claims meaningful and falsifiable, and (ii) delimit the field of possible predicates: those already conceptualised and determinable, those conceptualised yet indeterminate with respect to a subject, and those not yet conceptualised at all.

@Someone here Imagine a water hose spreading water on the lawn when the lawn is sufficiently moistened, how would we now stop the water? Would you try to stop it by placing your hands over the end-point of the hose? This may actually lead the water to spread even further, perhaps we can expect this to happen too by "dealing" with the anger that repeatedly arises in a repeating context? Turn the water supply of when the lawn is no longer in need of water-->remove yourself from the context that angers you, don't be so eager to anticipate, predict and control growth, allow it to happen naturally in the process of reflecting on your encounters, the way you have always done it-->naturally and retrospectively.

@Anton Rogachevski Alright, here comes the forensic analysis. The direct excerpts from your essay that motivated the paraphrases: Paraphrase 1 — “Suspend beliefs; beliefs obscure raw experience” “Set aside everything you believe to be true, just for a moment.” -> explicit instruction to suspend beliefs before inquiry. “our access to it was only through belief.” -> claims access to “what’s out there” comes via belief (mediated). “Eventually, these stories become so dominant that they replace the direct ‘live feed’ with an endless rerun of mental commentary.” -> explains the mechanism by which belief/thoughts obscure direct experience. Paraphrase 2 — “Reality is constructed / arises within direct experience” “the appearance of a wall inside of experience is a hologram.” -> treats perceived objects as appearances inside experience rather than independently given. “The creation of ‘reality’ occurs when thoughts floating in the void are glued together into a story.” -> describes a construction mechanism: thoughts “glued” into a story produce what you call reality. “’Reality’ is the dream of the unawakened void.” -> frames reality as arising from a dreaming/appearance process, not as a mind-independent noumenon. Paraphrase 3 — “Language and logic are limited; paradox/non-conceptual methods may be more suitable” “some of the ideas may seem paradoxical—even contradictory at times—but that’s because we’re pointing toward something that cannot be captured in conventional language.” -> explicit claim language cannot capture the target. “it’s paradoxical, so logic can’t grasp it.” -> direct denial of logic’s capacity to fully grasp the subject. “What we are trying to do here is to use thought to describe itself, and later to cancel itself.” -> indicates conceptual language is provisional and meant to be negated, supporting the use of non-conceptual methods. If any of these quotes are taken out of context, tell me which paraphrase you dispute and I’ll paste the surrounding sentence/paragraph for clarity. If you disagree with the explanatory line I gave for a specific quote, point to the exact sentence you think reads differently and I’ll show how the paraphrase follows from the text.

It is interesting that we get caught up describing the behavioural or attentional difference between men and women, which are just two sets of distinct attributes, but what if the real reason you are able to identify the difference between these two categories in the first place so clearly as you do is that there is an essential difference between men and women that is invariant under any behavioural context, and of which these behaviours are just particular manifestations? Isn't a man like the rock and a woman like the ocean, absorbing it with its plasticity? What is that softness really? How could one not be self-fixated and socially fixated if the self and sociality is the means to every milestone? How would you feel safe if the only option were to literally run or scream?

@Anton Rogachevski Maybe you would see the meaning of my questions more clearly if I post gpt-5s perspective on the answers you gave to them. Excellent — now we’ve got Anton’s replies on the table, so we can assess them under your chosen criteria: relevance, significance, power, and consistency. I’ll go point by point, matching his answers to your objections. 1. On beliefs obscuring raw experience Anton’s reply: “If by reality you mean the noumena then beliefs are the best you can wish for.” “If we talk about Truth as Phenomenological Truth, then all concepts are pure hallucination, because raw unfiltered experience is completely empty – so any attempt whatsoever to think about it will be wrong the moment you start thinking about it.” Relevance: Medium. He shifts from your question about dependency (beliefs derived from experience) to a broader Kantian distinction (noumena vs phenomena). He addresses “obscuration” only indirectly by saying “all concepts are hallucination.” That sidesteps your dependency argument. Significance: High in terms of his framework — he’s basically redefining “raw experience” as empty and any belief as distortion. But this answer radically transforms the initial position: it now sounds more like a mystical/nihilistic stance (“emptiness,” no-thought) rather than Husserlian bracketing. Power: Weak as a reply to your objection. Your question was: how can beliefs obscure what they depend on? He doesn’t resolve the logical structure, but instead dissolves the problem by saying experience itself is empty. That avoids, but doesn’t neutralize, your critique. Consistency: Moderate. He’s consistent with a strong phenomenological/mystical line (concept = hallucination, emptiness as ground), but inconsistent with the original claim that beliefs “obscure” experience. If raw experience is “empty,” there’s nothing to obscure in the first place. 2. On construct vs direct experience Anton’s reply: “I think you may have misunderstood. … I propose a duality between the unreachable by science (yet) experience, and the actual physical world which can be described by science in some sense.” Relevance: Medium-high. He acknowledges your concern but reframes his position. Instead of “construct vs experience,” he now says “experience vs scientific description.” That’s not the same dichotomy you critiqued, so he’s partly dodging the issue. Significance: Moderate. This clarification softens his position — it drifts away from radical constructivism toward a pragmatic dualism (phenomenal vs scientific world). But it also abandons the sharp constructivist bite that triggered your critique in the first place. Power: Weak against your objection. Your critique forced him to retreat into vagueness: “the unreachable by science (yet)” is not a clear ontological stance. It doesn’t explain whether raw impressions exist or not, nor whether “construct” means willful schema or constitution of consciousness. Consistency: Low-to-moderate. He started with “reality as construct,” now he’s shifted to “two domains (experience vs science).” These don’t line up cleanly. It sounds like a redefinition to escape the force of your question. 3. On truth beyond constructs Anton’s reply: “What kind of truth are you talking about?” Relevance: Low. This is a deflection rather than an answer. You asked whether there is any truth in addition to constructs; he avoids engagement by shifting the burden back onto you. Significance: Low. This doesn’t deepen his position, just sidesteps. Power: Very weak as a reply — it reads as evasive rather than constructive. Consistency: Neutral. He doesn’t commit himself, so no inconsistency, but also no substantive position. 4. On language and logic Anton’s reply: “Are simply the grammar of how the mind works, they are not tools of truth, but of practicality and survival.” Relevance: Medium. This does address your challenge indirectly: instead of defending ineffability claims, he reclassifies logic/language as pragmatic rather than truth-bearing. But it doesn’t squarely handle your paradox objection. Significance: Moderate-high. This is a strong materialist/pragmatist reorientation: truth isn’t what language is for. That’s a real philosophical position. Power: Medium. It partially disarms your critique: if logic/language are only survival tools, then the charge of “self-refutation” doesn’t matter — the point wasn’t truth to begin with. But that changes the playing field entirely, and it leaves unanswered: if they’re not tools of truth, what is? Consistency: Moderate. It’s consistent with a pragmatist or Darwinian view of cognition, but inconsistent with his earlier gestures toward “phenomenological truth.” If all language is survival grammar, how do we talk about “truth” at all? As you can see it isn't very happy with most of these answers, nor were I, you supposedly should have invested a lot of time and energy into these topics given that you write essays on it on dedicated websites, I produce very clear questions that directly hints to or even explicitly demonstrates problem with the positions that got paraphrased for readabilities sake. You either agree with the easily readable characterisation of your positions in those paraphrasing or you don't, and if you don't then just say so and Ill be happy to demonstrate where in your essay I got them from and if you do agree with those paraphrasings then we can get into how my concerns connect to them, so that we may finally discuss an actual agreement or disagreement.

Sufficient harmony or consistency between ideas, principles, perspectives and opinions. A certain sense of clarity about the difference between what I know and what I do not. Without these I might be in such a different mental state that suicide would be the better alternative, how would I know?

@Anton Rogachevski Paraphrasing nr. 1: "Beliefs about what exists obscure raw experience. To truly explore reality, one must suspend these beliefs— "a new and humble perspective." How far doe this obscuration go? If all beliefs and their contingent concepts are derived from active engagement with raw experience, how can they obscure it? How precisely does it work when the general principle that B being contingent on A entails the independency of A upon B--has exceptions, such as you propose when "beliefs obscure raw experience". Paraphrasing nr. 2: What we call “reality” is constructed or arises within direct experience—what appears real is filtered through our perceptual and cognitive framework, not granted as some independent noumenal realm. You appear to propose a disjunction, an exclusive duality or dichotomy between "construct" and "direct experience" in the first clause, in doing so wouldn't you have to deny the existence of a disinterested raw Humean "secondary impression" that merely reproduce semantically insignificant composites of shapes and sensory magnitudes--and if not--how are such things "constructs" without losing the argumentative punch reduction to constructivism has in the first place? Isn't the whole premise of a "construct" that it is a schema downstream from and subservient to the will of the agent--therewith serving it as a means to its ends--such that there is both analytical coherence to the concept of a "construct" and an ongoing conflict between it and whatever truth could exist in addition to it? Paraphrasing nr. 3: Position: Language and logic are inherently limited when exploring the nature of existence. Paradox and non-conceptual methods might be more appropriate tools because the subject is beyond conventional description. Are you thereby proposing that something must be positively affirmed for language, logic and concept to be an appropriate tool for exploring it? And even if you were to hold that position, aren't you denying that very position by attributing to the nature of existence the "non-positive" predicate of being indescribable by words? Edit: a few misconstructions.

I have also heard that being interested in who others actually are can be helpful when socialising, and don't forget being pleasant, last insight for today: have good hygiene.

Have you considered that the god that requires faith preserves the meaning of the generally accepted concept of god, while the god of necessity is no different from any theory of substance or relation of necessity/contingency? That the hundreds of billions of conversations concerning why there is anything at all and why it is precisely how it is throughout history were about something which requires faith for a reason, as opposed to something that is determined through a syllogism?

If structure are variables repeatedly arising together in the same contexts, for the same identifiable reasons and intents, then Id say structure is meaning. Thus expectation is meaning, prediction is meaning, when data comes together in the right way it means something. What is not meaningful is forgotten, no, what is not meaningful is indistinct, undeveloped and imperceivable. Can we identify something which stood unshaken amidst all structures, without which all structures would be like decomposing decay?

Most discourse is an exchange of knowledge, during which we often fixate on what we know, but how often do we distinguish between what we know and the tendency of knowing it? If you are anything like me then you often treat knowledge as rungs on the ladder, when it is acquired it is left behind, I consider this one kind of tendency of knowledge. Is it possible to stop the compulsion of "leaving the known behind"? If so, how do you do this?

You'll become serious, uncharmingly serious, because the condition for the lighthearted and humorous is the inverse of all you take reality to be, but you already considered all those inverses a hundred times over and would laugh as much when they were summoned as when they weren't. Everything becomes principles that carry the weight of predictions, and every fallacious prediction is a review as to the validity of the universality in that principle and thus a review of their origins in vanishing memories that you initially formed because they mattered to someone you no longer are.

@jacknine119 Are you prepared to stop investigating reality and instead dedicate your life to logical inconsistencies five our ten steps away from the apparent meaning you associate with your hard fought concepts and perspectives? Make no mistake about it, philosophy proper (philosophy as a discipline) is a pursuit into that which is not, in other terms: into that which we once craved. It begins no differently to how it ends, a rejection of coherence through narrative and appearance, it is a compulsion against telos and thus a nihilism. It is systematised maturity, and you will have no ability to predict whether this were the better approach, it will be delusional bravery. If you do it correctly some of the faces of the people you meet will bear marks of the contemplation of your homicide, since they will identify in you the inverse of faults they know they have to carry forever, if you do it correctly a fly may become more interesting than yourself.

@Carl-Richard Hah, humour! Is it reasonable to expect others to write how they speak in forums where the availability of long format communication and higher precision of abstraction is the reason forums get chosen in the first place?