Most things are imagined

[A Fellow Lighter]

8 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

A priori, synthesis, analysis, phenomena, cohesion, a posteriori, induction, necessity, knowledge, sensibility.

It would help much if you also understood the mere foundations of Skepticism, Dualism, Idealism, Rationalism and Physicalism. (But I conduct the experiment in such a way as to hopefully not make that a necessity)

If the ideas could be conveyed without the usage of these terms then I would be happy to do so, though my sentences would surely then include a definition of the terms instead, which I from a lot of experience determine as hurtful and not helpful to possible agreement.

That becomes incredible long-winded, and given that I am dyslexic it really drains my energy to explicate everything to its most acute detail. 

I am despite all this a big picture kind of guy, but many guilty of that proclivity loses naturally along side it the ability to do more than merely associate terms with each other in relation to this 'picture'. At least I were, and now I see pure association pretty much in anyone to various degrees. 

Yeah, I am not a philosopher, or at least, an academic one. I just look at the world and learn from its patterns, this is the source of knowledge tuition that epistemology concerns itself about. Is it not?

So then why must we induct anything when the world exists right before our eyes? I am too a skeptic, but I am a skeptic of the ideas not of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter Well it is because we grow lazy towards our every day life, we simply take things we believe in for granted and create dogmatic schemes due to it.

Everything you see right now is truth, everything you experience is absolutely true there and then. I am not skeptical about this and have never been. Empiricism stands on its own feets, though it is a shallow philosophy.

Wherever there is an experience there is also a common denominator between it and other experiences, the absolute common denominator is consciousness BUT it explains very little to merely affirm such a thing (and it will not help you much in itself to conduct good science), and since everyone can in some sense agree that there would be nothing without their consciousness one needs to actually use the other sets of common denominators to have a well thought out philosophy concerning metaphysics and epistemology, such that perhaps consciousness can get an ACCURATE depiction or exposition within that system at last.

That you contended with imagination being consciousness shows me how important that is. That scientists still to this day think they are speaking about the thing in itself shows me how important that is. That scientists in general therefore are unclear about the difference between speculation and truth makes these babysteps we conduct in our own bedroom concerning the validity of a belief of our own bed when we do not look at it, crucial.

 

That the identities in our schema such as the bed can seem equally a priori as the space we intuits this identity in, this is the primary concern of the Post itself. How this comes about, how we are capable of rendering new experience into identities, and that it happens automatically is the primary reason for the potential of all dogmatism.

I am very skeptical about ideas, most of these ideas concerns what you call the world, it is precisely because I am not skeptical about the world that I can use it as a foundation and a metric to compare ideas against. (If anything is not as true as the experience I have of the world right now, then it is a belief)

All the things I say are just ideas and entirely meaningless on their own, they must be called to life in a sensible intelligence to be something more. Language will always just be ideas, we are supposed to take ownership and responsibility for actually seeing what the ideas represent.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter " I just look at the world and learn from its patterns, this is the source of knowledge tuition that epistemology concerns itself about. Is it not?"

If that is your epistemology then yes then you are correct, this is however extremely vague, as in the association I spoke of earlier.

Knowledge is either a priori or a posteriori, it is either the faculty for understanding itself or the experience which is rendered under it. On top of this, it is pure consciousness itself, as that within which all else (known) occurs. At which point epistemology and metaphysics loses their distinction.

[Reciprocality]

9 hours ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

I'm not sure of the first statement here regarding an intuition that applies to everything. If you feel like you can state this in another way then please do.

Here's what I am certain of though, which is no induction: Yes, there is nothing outside of energy, for in order for a thing to be a thing, this requires an enablement of some sort simply because no thing can arise from nothing. Everything requires energy, yes?

This is quite simple what I'm saying here, no science other than the original science (observance) is involved. Let us just say yes, there is nothing outside of energy. What I'm saying is this.. For there to be perception, there must first be the perceptible. For there to be action, there must first be the the doable. For there to be love, there must be the lovable. For there to be thought, there must be the thinkable. And etc. So you see, the things of reality must be enabled, otherwise nothing is happening. 

Now, why am I saying that there is nothing outside of consciousness, not even the structure of reality? It is because consciousness is what enables the illusion that is finitude, consciousness is that great magician that works with pulling something out of nothing. Structure comes from instruction, picture comes from imagination, texture comes from context, and so forth. Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself.

Nothing is an impossibility, which is why nothing is required to create something. Something must always be.

"What I'm saying is this.. For there to be perception, there must first be the perceptible." This is what the intuition of the thing in itself is expressed like. And we do not know if the perceptible is consciousness.

The alternative is that you just speak of substance of mind, and not a thing in itself. Which would then make the distinction between for example doable and doing meaningless, as doing would simply be a particular instantiation of the doable.

 

"Here's what I am certain of though, which is no induction: Yes, there is nothing outside of energy, for in order for a thing to be a thing, this requires an enablement of some sort simply because no thing can arise from nothing. Everything requires energy, yes?"

Sure, everything can be expressed as energy (how would time have meaning without it), energy would also have no meaning without our sensibility of time. There is no mystery here.

 

"Now, why am I saying that there is nothing outside of consciousness, not even the structure of reality? It is because consciousness is what enables the illusion that is finitude, consciousness is that great magician that works with pulling something out of nothing. Structure comes from instruction, picture comes from imagination, texture comes from context, and so forth. Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself."

This assumes that the thing in itself does not exist in any way, we do not know this though we do not know the opposite either. To say that we can be possible without something in itself outside us goes contrary to all evidence, which non the less constitute nothing but belief and never proof.

I have stated that it is absolutely mystical to consider something independent of consciousness, this does not mean it does not exist. We have only consciousness to go with when we both define and speak about existence, which inherently renders the thing in itself mystical. Yet all our intuitions and reason says it is there even though we can not know what it is like.

"Absolutely no thing stands on its own, there is no priori other than knowledge itself." 

You have some peculiar self reference problems in your language, you could just as much state that "knowledge is knowledge, taadaa!" 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

There is a problem here though, I have not even got to my beliefs yet. We are simply on uneven footing.

In you however, there seems to be too much belief, though that may just be a product of language more than you yourself. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

24 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

There is a problem here though, I have not even got to my beliefs yet. We are simply on uneven footing.

In you however, there seems to be too much belief, though that may just be a product of language more than you yourself. 

Maybe, how would we know which is the case? Language or belief?

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter That is only for you to know, I can't. I can only infer, and only infer so well.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

Everything you see right now is truth, everything you experience is absolutely true there and then. I am not skeptical about this and have never been. Empiricism stands on its own feets, though it is a shallow philosophy.

Well of course it is shallow. Life is not philosophy, philosophy is just one of its many aspects. True learning happens through observation, not rational thinking. It is very rare, if not the case at all, to awaken to a new knowledge of life via reasoning alone.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter Philosophy's final aim is to cancel out belief from truth, and to impose a rule-system on human reason.

It is also about discovering the minimal cohesion trough which every reason can unfold and become a possible science, such cohesion which is imposed on the "I" constituting sensibilities.

Trough reasoning alone there is mathematics, which definitely discoveres a lot of life.

"True learning happens through observation, not rational thinking." you just define learning to fit your personality, rather cynical.

[A Fellow Lighter]

2 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter That is only for you to know, I can't. I can only infer, and only infer so well.

In all honesty, I don't consider myself learning the nature of reality without belief, so I will understand why one might say that there is too much belief. Although, I am not sure about the how much statement of it. 

But on my accordance with life, it seems as though it is impossible to live without any belief/s. According to me, it is belief that governs behaviour, not rational thought. So almost everyone, if not absolutely everyone, is acting and speaking from a somewhat personal-religious view point.

What do you think? 

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter You are right that it is impossible to survive without belief, and this is also important to discover.

But to know the difference, that is where the gold is.

[A Fellow Lighter]

3 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter Philosophy's final aim is to cancel out belief from truth, and to impose a rule-system on human reason.

It is also about discovering the minimal cohesion trough which every reason can unfold and become a possible science, such cohesion which is imposed on the "I" constituting sensibilities.

Trough reasoning alone there is mathematics, which definitely discoveres a lot of life.

"True learning happens through observation, not rational thinking." you just define learning to fit your personality, rather cynical.

And this is precisely why I would say with confidence that philosophy won't fulfill this aim without incorporating other dimensions such as mysticism into its application. Reasoning is philosophy's only go-to tool in sorting belief from truth, is it not?

And how am I being cynical? You tell me what the term reasoning refers to and tell me if it doesn't sound like the most cynical of cynical things one can come across?

[A Fellow Lighter]

7 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter You are right that it is impossible to survive without belief, and this is also important to discover.

But to know the difference, that is where the gold is.

No, not to survive - to live. One's mortal existence is hardly affected by not having a personal belief structure, for if s/he has none then s/he may simply study and adopt the beliefs of another. 

I am not talking about self-preservation here, I'm talking about living or acting or taking responsibility, not just merely existing.

And, again, I don't find it necessary to differentiate between truth and belief, as this is plainly obvious in my accord: Truth is here, right now, in its absolute. And belief comes secondary to truth, for it is in the finite actions that one chooses to make.

32 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter That is only for you to know, I can't. I can only infer, and only infer so well.

But I wasn't really on about differentiating between truth and belief. I just wanted to know if you thought there could be a way to see if, in evening our footing, we could tell if it is a lingual problem on my behalf or a “a too much belief” problem, again, on my side.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

And this is precisely why I would say with confidence that philosophy won't fulfill this aim without incorporating other dimensions such as mysticism into its application. Reasoning is philosophy's only go-to tool in sorting belief from truth, is it not?

And how am I being cynical? You tell me what the term reasoning refers to and tell me if it doesn't sound like the most cynical of cynical things one can come across?

@A Fellow Lighter I agree wholeheartedly that mysticism must be incorporated, since consciousness is necessary it (mysticism) better concern the thing in itself. Rationalism will never accept existence, even though it knows of its necessity, such as it does in me.

Reasoning is many things, and considered very differently everywhere. So far as it is a priori itself it is a kind of truth itself, so far as it infer a possible experience from analytical a priori truths and a given identity from experience it becomes a synthetic a priori judgement, which can either be confirmed or not in the "environment".

Everything concept for example in mathematics is analytic, but an equation becomes a synthesis of such analytical a priori truths in relation to the problem tried solved.

The equation so far as it can be thought of trough completion at once becomes an identity that can easily be fooled for an analytical a priori concept such as 1. In this way 4 is an identity that can be considered in itself which non the less is a synthesis of 1s. Memories seem like they are self evident and self subsistent, when they are not (in relation to understanding) for this reason.

The magic happens when 4 becomes 1 because you can just as much make 4 the unit of measurement (which makes 1 a forth), is it then 4  synthetic? Only in a given relation, but not "in itself". 

 

If you consider all this cynical then I feel compassion for you.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

You have defined truth in a certain way which cancel your capabilities of actually understanding what I say. Words have become a problem itself, I know not how to help from here.

Everything is truth, in the absolute sense. Words are not absolute, and you will not have it both ways.

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter "But I wasn't really on about differentiating between truth and belief. I just wanted to know if you thought there could be a way to see if, in evening our footing, we could tell if it is a lingual problem on my behalf or a “a too much belief” problem, again, on my side."

You would begin with accepting that there is such a thing as sensible space, without which no object could be in it or made sense of by means of.

And that this is true, and not a belief. And accordingly, that truths must be differentiated even though everything is truth. (so far as you wish to use language)

Edited March 23, 2022 by Reciprocality

[happyhappy]

@Reciprocality @A Fellow Lighter a top notch quality discussion!

we want more of them here!

[A Fellow Lighter]

43 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Reasoning is many things, and considered very differently everywhere. So far as it is a priori itself it is a kind of truth itself, so far as it infer a possible experience from analytical a priori truths and a given identity from experience it becomes a synthetic a priori judgement, which can either be confirmed or not in the "environment".

Everything concept for example in mathematics is analytic, but an equation becomes a synthesis of such analytical a priori truths in relation to the problem tried solved.

The equation so far as it can be thought of trough completion at once becomes an identity that can easily be fooled for an analytical a priori concept such as 1. In this way 4 is an identity that can be considered in itself which non the less is a synthesis of 1s. Memories seem like they are self evident and self subsistent, when they are not (in relation to understanding) for this reason.

I will make it quite short for you, the term reasoning doesn't refer to many things as you suggest. The term refers to a common experience, that is.. making sense of the senseless through rational thought - this is to reason, is it not? Just look. Is this not what you attempt to do when you reason? And if the thought is not a rational then it is anything between guessing and being hysterical, is this not what goes on in the our collectives?

[A Fellow Lighter]

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Nothing is an impossibility, which is why nothing is required to create something. Something must always be.

Why? So that it can make sense? ?

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

You have some peculiar self reference problems in your language, you could just as much state that "knowledge is knowledge, taadaa!" 

But that's exactly what I'm saying, though. However, of course, when I say this, it will come across as the most meaningless statement one could make rather carelessly and dry. 

You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X), and that it is through the sensibility of space that we can learn of their presence and imagine their identities into reality thus rendering the (X) identifiable. This is how I've come to understand you thus far. 

Now, what I'm saying (from a mystical pov) is this: There - here - is only Knowledge. This knowledge is not the knowing of things (X) or information, no. This knowledge is nonduality complete - it is knowledge of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing for infinity, and never the knowing of a what or who or why and etc, no. Thus, knowledge is knowledge. It is nonduality, it is whole, and it is here, with us and within us, it is the absolute. To awaken to this requires no reasoning or induction of any kind, it merely requires a mere moment of silent observation. 

Is this not obvious enough? If I were to ask you, “How do you know that you exist?” won't the most honest and yet simplest response be, “I know, because I know.” ? Is this not the truth? You know that you exist because you know in the first place? See.. Knowledge is the first place; it is, in fact, the first and last; it is, in truth, the only place. Thus so, there is nothing outside of existence, for there is nothing outside of Knowledge. 

Then, from this Knowledge, arises that dormant serpent which you have constantly referred to as intuition, what the Indians call “Kundalini”, what my people call uMbilini, and what the religious scriptures  call “Lucifer” which literally translates to 'The Lighter', or 'Light Bringer', for it is this very intuition that awakened Adam and Eve in their edenic, nondual, nature of consciousness. Intuition is secondary to Knowledge. 

[Reciprocality]

@A Fellow Lighter 

1 hour ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

I will make it quite short for you, the term reasoning doesn't refer to many things as you suggest. The term refers to a common experience, that is.. making sense of the senseless through rational thought - this is to reason, is it not? Just look. Is this not what you attempt to do when you reason? And if the thought is not a rational then it is anything between guessing and being hysterical, is this not what goes on in the our collectives?

Reasoning so far as it is synthetic and involves identity from sensation (yet imposed on sensation) does not refer to a common understanding, unless you believe that the thing in itself is a physical world independent of you which non the less inputs into you your ideas that are just the same as someone else's.

So far as it is synthetic though purely mathematical I am willing to grant that there may be something common between us in it the way sensible space is common between us.

There is only one thing that does not make sense, and that is existence itself, because the negation we use to contradict it is internal to it. Everything in existence however, that all makes sense a priori at various levels of complexity, which is why consciousness has cohesion in it, and ultimately why it is not to stupid to consider consciousness as itself cohesion.

 

39 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Why? So that it can make sense? ?

But that's exactly what I'm saying, though. However, of course, when I say this, it will come across as the most meaningless statement one could make rather carelessly and dry. 

You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X), and that it is through the sensibility of space that we can learn of their presence and imagine their identities into reality thus rendering the (X) identifiable. This is how I've come to understand you thus far. 

Now, what I'm saying (from a mystical pov) is this: There - here - is only Knowledge. This knowledge is not the knowing of things (X) or information, no. This knowledge is nonduality complete - it is knowledge of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing for infinity, and never the knowing of a what or who or why and etc, no. Thus, knowledge is knowledge. It is nonduality, it is whole, and it is here, with us and within us, it is the absolute. To awaken to this requires no reasoning or induction of any kind, it merely requires a mere moment of silent observation. 

Is this not obvious enough? If I were to ask you, “How do you know that you exist?” won't the most honest and yet simplest response be, “I know, because I know.” ? Is this not the truth? You know that you exist because you know in the first place? See.. Knowledge is the first place; it is, in fact, the first and last; it is, in truth, the only place. Thus so, there is nothing outside of existence, for there is nothing outside of Knowledge. 

Then, from this Knowledge, arises that dormant serpent which you have constantly referred to as intuition, what the Indians call “Kundalini”, what my people call uMbilini, and what the religious scriptures  call “Lucifer” which literally translates to 'The Lighter', or 'Light Bringer', for it is this very intuition that awakened Adam and Eve in their edenic, nondual, nature of consciousness. Intuition is secondary to Knowledge. 

That is right, without existence being necessary it can only make sense if you say that it is willed by something, most people call it god.

Existence is only necessary experimentally from first person experience, which is why you will not end up with that realization unless you discover it yourself. At the same time, this experience is referenced by reason, and made cohesive in a given context by reason. There is no problem with doing that, but you can not brute force it trough pure reason, or synthetic logic.

Here it is natural to make it ambiguous whether one refers to the identity of the realization or it itself, I try to avoid this.

 

"You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X)" Nope.

 

Everything is the reason you know you exist, which is why the question is meaningless. Your consciousness is a predicate, not a conclusion. There is no synthetic reason you know you exist, to attempt a philosophy which does that would be silly, though to attempt a science of doing that could give many, many answers, how you come to determine what those answers mean is the pinnacle of the hard problem, concerning which I have beliefs and not knowledge.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Reciprocality