On physicality and duality

[Reciprocality]

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.

Edited March 27 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

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?

Edited March 27 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

12 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

and this positive entity is distinct from the positive content of the physical world prior to the capacity for reflection

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.

[Reciprocality]

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.

Edited March 27 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

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.

Edited March 27 by Reciprocality

[Princess Arabia]

Duality is the illusion. No such thing. There's not even a relative because it's all the Absolute, which includes the relative. Duality is the dream.

Too much logic: too much explanation, too much intellect. 

Edited March 27 by Princess Arabia

[Reciprocality]

36 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Duality is the illusion. No such thing. There's not even a relative because it's all the Absolute, which includes the relative. Duality is the dream.

Too much logic: too much explanation, too much intellect. 

@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.

[Reciprocality]

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.

[Princess Arabia]

15 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@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.

Yeah I'm stuck in illusion but atleast I know it's illusory. The self doesn't create anything because there is no self. 

[Yimpa]

26 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I try to have the same standard for me as others.

Watch out. This is how fascism comes to be. 

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

Watch out. This is how fascism comes to be. 

@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

Edited March 27 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Yeah I'm stuck in illusion but atleast I know it's illusory. The self doesn't create anything because there is no self. 

@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?

[Princess Arabia]

53 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

 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,

There's no physical world. Sensations are just happening and we cling unto them as if they're our own. That's the illusion. That's why some people can't and don't feel pain. That's why some are born blind, dumb and deaf. It's all just appearances. It's a dream. Nothing is being created. 

 

[Reciprocality]

9 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

There's no physical world. Sensations are just happening and we cling unto them as if they're our own. That's the illusion. That's why some people can't and don't feel pain. That's why some are born blind, dumb and deaf. It's all just appearances. It's a dream. Nothing is being created. 

 

@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.

Edited March 28 by Reciprocality