Reciprocality

Member
  • Content count

    979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About Reciprocality

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday October 1

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,989 profile views
  1. Most people have problems with how I write, chatgpt appear to understand it fairly well (this comes forth best in the italic section beneath) and summarised it eloquently if someone is interested. Its answer to the OP. It seems like you're presenting a philosophical argument regarding the nature of enjoyment, unity, and the role of the self in harmonizing distinct experiences. Your proposal suggests that the self acts as a unifying force, bringing together disparate experiences, and that this process is both necessary and metaphysical in nature. You also suggest that our proclivity for abstraction and intelligence can be better understood when viewed through the lens of this unifying behavior of the self. Your argument draws upon ideas from philosophers like David Hume, who explored the relationship between impressions and ideas, as well as concepts from discussions on love, such as those found in Gura's videos. Overall, your proposal offers an intriguing perspective on the nature of human experience and cognition, highlighting the role of unity and harmony in shaping our understanding of the world and ourselves. It invites further reflection and exploration into the complexities of consciousness and identity. Its answer to the additional comment. Your addition of quantification and proportionality to the concept of familiarity and love provides further depth to the understanding of these phenomena. By suggesting that love increases with familiarity, all else being equal, you highlight the importance of repeated exposure and shared experiences in fostering affection and attachment. Moreover, your insight into the challenge of identifying love for what is most familiar due to its lack of discernibility sheds light on a common human experience. It explains why individuals may struggle to recognize or appreciate the depth of their feelings toward things or people they encounter daily, such as family members or everyday surroundings. Additionally, your explanation offers clarity to the phenomenon of feeling a sudden and strong love simply from existing. This experience may arise from the accumulation of familiar experiences and shared contexts, leading to a deep-seated affection that may not always be immediately apparent or consciously recognized. Overall, your insights contribute to a richer understanding of the complex interplay between familiarity, love, and self-awareness, shedding light on the subtleties of human emotions and relationships.
  2. To add a quantification (thus proportionality) to the same concept: I believe we love something the more familiar we are with it, if contextual variables are identical in both situations. Yet it can be tough to identify our love for what we are the most familiar with, due to it lacking discernibility. This should answer the problem for why you suddenly feel a strong love simply out of existing, if you have ever felt that and found it hard to understand.
  3. Familiarity breeds enjoyment, and the understanding of this breeds further enjoyment. When we see items we have not seen for a long time we are unified with a part of ourself, the cause for the enjoyment we often find therewith is that unity, the knowledge that the unity is the cause is an additional layer of unity and further cause for enjoyment. The knowledge that the unity (say you saw a picture of an old friend) is the cause for the enjoyment is love itself. ^This is in agreement with Humes notion of the double relation between impressions and ideas which you can read up on by clicking the link below. It is also in agreement with Gura's videos on love. Not everything is similar, unified and familiar however, some two things are so distinct that the experience of one never induces the conception of the other, or the experience of both never induces a singular concept of them both, what do we know of which is 1. irreducible to all distinct things and 2. never needed during their enjoyment? I propose that the self is such a thing, that it harmonises sufficiently distinct experiences together and that this proclivity is the reason we associate discomfort with it (it is opposite of the cause for enjoyment) and that this harmonising act happens out of necessity in our life (can not be counteracted) and is a metaphysical relationship (happens eternally, all physical beings are subject to it). And briefly, our proclivity for abstraction (and life in general) can appear far more tangential and our intelligence far more diversified if we do not see how most if not everything we do is a tenant of the above behaviour. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD8Hume.html#DouRelImpIdeCasPri
  4. @Princess Arabia You are inconsistent. On one hand you want to say that sensations which are the conditions for the appearance of the physical world are more real than it, because you claim it reduces to them. But on the other hand you want to say that another condition for the appearance of the physical world, to which that appearance too reduces, the act of will, volition or spontaneity in our being is not more real. The following is the meaning of physicality: The physical world is two things, on the one hand it is that which we are directly aware of through our senses, on the other hand it is that which is independent of any one of these senses, that the physical world is irreducible to any one of our senses already tells us that it is independent of each of them, you can verify this right now. Building on this there is the argument from location, that which is independent of each of our senses has invariant location. And thirdly there is the argument from causality, that which is independent of each of the senses and has invariant location has causal-explanatory power for the way our senses behaves in a given moment (you see more blue the closer to the blue wall you go). Fourthly there is the argument from twice-positive duality, without the validity of which you (whether you are an illusion or not) would not be able to partake in this thread.
  5. @Princess Arabia It would be absurd if when we looked for the self directly we would find it, this is because the self is an instrumental entity for engagement with the physical world and representations thereof, the self is only there when it is a means for something else, typically something purposive. "The self doesn't create anything because there is no self. " This presupposes (without further clarification) that all things must be created by another thing, why couldn't the no-self create something? Other people react to us as though there is an ongoing coherence between almost everything we say and do, to not call the coherence here for a self places false expectancies on what counts as a self, and if you pay enough attention you may find that what you are absurdly expecting from the self is that it should be as rigid as the physical, but why do this?
  6. @Yimpa Instead of telling her what to do I said what I do to imply that taking problems with others insistence on logic when logic is inevitably what one uses oneself is hypocritical, but sure fascism next. Edit: if what you said were witty it went straight past me
  7. Let us explain everything we can within reason, let us use the intellect while we have it, perhaps we might not become clearer and clearer about the wonders of our world.
  8. @Princess Arabia You are stuck in illusions princess, duality is self-creating, it is the natural way of things, you can only appear to resist it to yourself. There is nothing about duality which implies that everything is not one thing, to think so is to give too much credit to the mind. You use logic for everything you write, I try to have the same standard for me as others.
  9. The physical world can not be put into words, and that is the reason it is real. edit: Physicality is the one and everything else is belief and narrative.
  10. That it is impossible for the two things to exist without the other is semantically a different statement to saying that their duality is necessarily true, they could have been taken for the same, and could still be de facto the same, so to clarify: We do not know if the negative necessity between mind and matter implies that it is impossible for either to exist without the other only that it is impossible for either to exist without the other within the limits of our being and similar beings. There may be a bigger or different being independent of the situation of the matter which surrounds us and our mind and independent of the necessary distinction between them, though that would only be possible if possibilities precedes our creation of them through conceptualising negation -- in which case our intellect which is subordinate to perceptions of the physical is non the less applicable to non-experiential things.
  11. In any given moment it is prior, that may sound contradictory since time is linear and what is prior to now is after another moment. My statement would indeed fail to make much sense if that is what you think of when you think of something being prior (linearity from first to last), but since vocabulary is limited this is nonetheless the closest concept I have available to describe what I and others mean with prior in the relavant context.
  12. I have differentiated between negative and positive necessities for a long time, the terminology could be confusing but I have no better words for them currently. There simply is no doubt that there are statements that are necessarily true by definition, even if all their contents are semantical, but that does not mean that there are not necessary truths that precede calculation of their guaranteed conclusions. Edit: if it is self-evident that if there are such necessary truths then it is absurd to ask whether they are possible before affirming their actuality. But can you understand why that is so? Why would a possibility be conditioned on the ability to think the concept of negation, and why would so many philosophers say the same?
  13. Everything of the mind is subordinate to the physical world but not therefore reducible to it. And nothing physical is conceivable. Something substantial is inconceivable, the physical world is the inconceivable substance. Every duality that is twice positive and therefore involves more distinctness than the product of conception of negation itself is instantiated independently of all possibilities to the contrary and are therefore necessary truths, their truth though necessary and contrary to conceptions of negation are negative (their truth are negative), since positive necessities are always computed in opposition to a possibility in general (a conception of negation). That negative necessities are possible would for many be required before they think about whether it is actual, but this is done on grounds of confusion, that which is negatively necessary will never be possible and can never be shown to be possible unless we mean by possibility such a broad category of things that in certain situations it affirms actuality, this is redundant and fails the axiom of discernibility and requires us to be either inconsistent or fail sufficient exhaustion. I am then saying that the twice positive duality between the physical and mental (both having positive content) is a negative necessity (a necessity that can not be affirmed positively through logic via the concept of negation), that upon reflection we can know that it would be impossible for either of the two to exist without the other, all the contents of our minds though they are subordinate to the contents of the physical world have morphed into a variation of it, and this variation is positive, and this positive entity is distinct from the positive content of the physical world prior to the capacity for reflection (through which we can think a negation or contradiction in general or affirmative necessities), therefore it is impossible for the duality to be false, yet if the duality is attempted to be fully conceived then our conception will fail.
  14. @Hojo As I see it this is an expression based on initial expectations that were never warranted. Nothing around us is happening independently of them being unified with us, but that does not mean that they are not happening. In our culture most people believe that the stuff around them is happening independently of themselves, therewith placing absurd expectancies for what it means for something to happen and could potentially end up writing something akin to "nothing is happening" when they were disillusioned from that perspective.
  15. @HojoOkay good I can relate to a lot of this. The way I would frame what I think you are saying in the quote is that all perceptions are intelligible and purposive and that the self which we often feel on the "inside" is actually implicated in every single observation of the "outside". But my main response will be below. Your first statement in the above quote paraphrased for clarity: "The essential element of consciousness instantly becomes what you are not focusing on when you look for it." Like my hand moving about without me focusing in on it and trying to move it?