Isomorphic

@Joseph Maynor Well, all of these things can only become an issue when we first pay attention to things as antithetical to other things such to calculate a synthesis of them. The thing is they are naturally synthesized to perfect cohesion in the unity from where they were first extracted. This calculation will never keep up with the natural "synthesis", which is why philosophy must at last be considered a means to wisdom which can be applied in a world of possibilities. (edit: and not a rationalistic mathematical scheme) There are better and worse ways of going about doing that, which is what most relates to your comment and which my next response (perhaps I will write it later today) must contend with.

@Joseph Maynor Well spotted, and I agree with all you just stated. I also understand well your issues about teaching enlightenment, though I would not say that I am so myself. Though there are such a thing as Kantian forms of a priori sensible intuitions, such things that are more than abstractions. That which abstractions pertains to and are made of. That which we are both limited and potentiated by, that which can be held in thought without being themselves merely an "abstraction". We are imposed by these things as long as we live, and we would be so wherever we went. These are a predicate for consciousness, yet also impossible without consciousness.

This means that if reason is truly possible, concerning existence itself, it must be additive or affirmative. Such that all things are synthetic and coming into being, never to have been. Eternal dialectics without contradiction, no antithesis at all. What you think @lxlichael This and nothing less would be Post-Hegelian Nietzsche-ism.

@Faith Indeed, and in being that and nothing more, that which is looked at now and always we can be satisfied. We share with all possible things in other words, something innate. But can we make sense of it, despite it negating no alternative? I guess we create negation itself to make sense of it, so to have existence alongside non-existence. We are truly silly.

@AppleJuice While it is certainly the case we all express enlightenment in various ways as to make it seem completely amorphous as in constituting no object/predicate for identification as precisely what we better expect of this realization which despite it occurrence in diverse contexts has the ability to remove any one of them. Our expressions relates to it the way objects relates to the space we place them in, they bare a necessary connection which itself will always confuse. For we think we have discovered space by induction from its objects, when what we have is made objects imaginable in and out of experience by our intuition of space.

The capacity and will to lead well, particularly during struggle and in battle. The stoic overcoming of fear, longing for violence and control. The struggle ITSELF of getting socialized and civilized. The love for power and responsibility. Camaraderie but distance. That is the essence of masculinity, what is divine?

@lxlichael 1. No, only in so far as there are reasons to believe that holding someone accountable will change their behavior, would it in general have the potential to bear fruits more than it costs to commit to it. I personally posses minimal capacity for empathy except for people I have a relation to, Children in general and disabled people, and zero when the harm is self conflicted. Every adult who took their own life or harmed themselves due to the opportunities Leo presented them I consider radically responsible for their own actions. 2. While it is true that Leo presents these people with opportunities they do not have the wisdom to take, Leo in speaking what he believes in so far as my ethics are concerned is entirely in his right. I understand well that you will fight for these people, though there are many fights to have had in this life and to me it seems that the desire to fight here is rather irrational. 3. It is precisely in understanding how limited you are you can actually impose the power by means of that limit, it is naive to believe that you have any power over Leo, unless you will actually do unthinkable things, in which case you would be truly limited right now if the chances of getting caught were worthwhile to you. If a unit of negative and a unit of positive cancel each other out, which I certainly do not agree with then I know of not many people whose positive contribution supersedes their negative as much as in Leo's case. Even though universality is a simple matter, the world and our place in it is not, it is curious how I the rationalist must tell you this. 4. It is perfectly correct that anyone who acts in the world denies their own essence when they simultaneously says that "anything goes", and indeed a contradiction were it considered the way you do. Though at the same time morals are inherently relative. There are no "should be held accountable for" unless you determine so, unless you both posses the means as you said to hold them accountable and that it in the aftermath were the better outcome, for this reason ethics becomes a matter of calculation and a matter of what you have reason to expect and not to. You simply don't know if it is your responsibility to do it, it is a belief. So as a synthesis you are better of considering your power as limited by your rationale and not the other way around. The alternative would be to live in constant fear of yourself.

That of me which would be the same wherever I were brought, whoever raised me and in whatever possible planet or way of living I were subjected to, that essential thing about me that would only come forth had I lived trough every possibility such to see what were never absent in any of them. To discover that though by means only of a single lifetime, to have discovered that if so the body bade farewell tomorrow, that is my goal. I am the discovery itself, for as nothing else were I already satisfied.

Amazing, and indeed art is everywhere. Give a shape its proper lighting and what have you? A sculpture.

In all humanity there must and will be people that teaches others by means of the giants they stand on the shoulders of, the way we make a synthesis of all these are our teaching to the world. Leo is no different. Leo do not hold anything back, this is both the reason he is where he is and the reason people will suffer from it.

When someone speaks of themselves as innately superior we are from our conditioning of childhood made to react against it, and judge such claims as totally inappropriate to reciprocal interaction. The mistake we carry over from such conditioning in addition is to not take responsibility over what does and does not make sense on the merit of a teaching itself, and not they who profess it. Only those that for various reasons have inferiority complexes will learn to be governed by they who have defined themselves outside this minimal decency of equality. So far as I allow myself to be blunt here, it is already evident that he is lost he who cares for one second what it is that Leo should and should not have done. If people are the means by which the world makes sense still, for you, then Leo is the last person you should listen to, and so far as you have grown out of your childhood you can stand the chance of integrating his teachings fully, that about it which resonates with you.

First of, that I can distinguish these modalities in any kind means they are unified and one from the beginning. Though it would be detrimental to all human endevours not to admit the inevitable distinction between all things that unfolds in experience, I can easily class thoughts and sensation in two divergent camps though see an equally great distinction between different thoughts on the one hand and different sensations on the other. When I now close my eyes and feel the way my back hurts due to exercise yesterday, it occurs with my sensibility of space, and I can not imagine for the best of me how it is any different for anyone else. All these things are mind, to class them from 1 to 10 would be trivial, everything which is experienced is inherently a 10, and in relation to other things they are all both 10 and 0, 10 for they constitute my consciousness all, and 0 for they are in any sense different.

No problem at all, all I try to say is that even though thoughts are fantastical and imaginative and always disappear they are strict and limited. That precisely which makes them limited is intuited in all thoughts, Kant would call such things a priori forms of sensible intuition. Though they require no such name, for they mean nothing more than for example time and space.

Now when sight is gone and breath comes and goes I notice that the ideas that also comes and goes that we in alignment denotes "mental", follows each other and are all presentable in space thus subject to the boundaries of time, space and causality. And just like I can truly grab onto the experience of the heart I can grab onto the limitations themselves of my thoughts, I can not grab onto the thoughts themselves of course, in the sense you mean it so. So the only thing i disagreed with is the claim that one can not grab onto the scenery of the play, while the thoughts by which the scenery may be presented is always water under the bridge. The maximum life vision is pure heart, though cancelled totally without a use of reason.

I did not say what you will have had me say, it is not derived from experience that consciousness is absent from the world of substances, that it (so far as it is yours) is absent from the world of substances is self evident, which is why I can represent it here to you, and why most people can understand what it means. The only alternative is that sensibility (which is what me and you are made of such to for example point towards space in the agreement that such is the same for me and for you) is derived from induction, which is an infinite regression and the only actual contradiction here.

When we tempt to define existence as something that are not contingent on the consciousness required to define it we are doing ourself no favor, end begin with an impossible task. (To begin with definitions in metaphysics like the mathematicians in physics is to put the cart in front of the horse) Absence of experience is what we call it when consciousness is absent. You can not have experience without consciousness. When you ask if something can exist prior to consciousness, what that question must amount to is if the appearances of object points to objects with an independent existence. That this independence is such - we can in our naivete from childhood say with certainty, for otherwise there are no congruence to anything in consciousness, we simply call it independent from us all things that comes and goes without us doing anything. This does not mean that it is that which appears to us, is it prior? Well causality or time is entirely our a priori sensibility, something which we impose onto this independent realm of substances, so if it could be prior then that would mean that the object which is prior is NOT the appearance but something "behind" it.

You can know that people exist to the same extent as you do, because a priori sensibility is a necessary ingredient for the consciousness you have right now. And since consciousness is absent (time speeding up) when your brain is knocked to that state, you can be sure that it has something to do with the brain and consequently that the brain of others is conscious But this kind of knowledge has little to do with the idea and identity you have created of particular people, but instead serves you as a knowledge of 'there being someone there'. The reason all this is known is because reality is a closed system. So far as reality is mystical you have no such knowledge, and why would there then be anyone on "the other side"? How the world in material form operates as opposed to why it exist is entirely mystical however, and can never be known but merely believed.

Existence is a necessity, what then does god constitute in opposition to what? To realize that we are god, and that it could not be otherwise, is it not then to realize that existence must be and that there is nothing to create nor a creator? That we realize ourself as god not because we created anything, but because of the opposite; that there is nothing to create.

What if the distinction between witnessing and understanding is itself limited or purely academic? That all witnessing truly unfolds in an absolute cohesion, that antithesis produces synthesis by itself and therefore is just a dream.

The ego, my attachment to the body, my desire for pleasure, societal impact, speculation, all beliefs, existential dread, fear of death. All externally enforced behaviours, such primarily as taste be it in comedy, music, architecture, movie, game etc. My desire for violence (both general kinds), though i guess some things are better left accepted though restricted than demonized. Edit: the question you asked can be understood two ways, and I fear I answered the way it weren't meant to mean as "the things I want to be done with, but aren't yet".

Books must only be read if they blow your hair of, unless for practical reasons their contents are to be consumed as a efficient means. There are not many who would deviate in wisdom by application of this principle. Our lives are simply too short and resources to scarce to be less then selective here. But to read something you could have discovered for yourself had you paid better attention robs you of the deep potential you posses, for books relates to our understanding the way a fan relates to the circle. You could witness a hundred fans spinning without ever applying the logic which underlies the spin the way you could read as many books without becoming the slightest wiser. So it is the ultimate test then, as such to your judgement which book you are reading instead of another. Edit: Try Ecce Homo, by Nietzsche