/lit/ - Literature

>Where the bee sucks, there suck I.

>>16668590
Yes, “be” is an antecedent without a predecessor.

“Your” “self” - the self is manifested socially. Socially is non-possessive. You don’t own a self. “You” as it refers to a “self” is a particular self-will that identifies itself to the extent that it can identify its social surroundings. Again social surroundings are not possessive.
Social surroundings are atomically made of units called ego, each person has an ego that correlates with the state of a society. The ego is self evident (you’re understanding yourself right now without knowing why or how).
To “be” means to prove the self evidence but this is logical nonsense. It’s jew tricks to confuse you. Fuck jews

>>16668590
It's harder to bee yourself than it is to bee anybody else I wish I was a little less of a coward

>>16668590
yes

>>16668590
No, Heidegger proved the bee right.

>>16668643
All that semantics when you could just B.E. yourself.

>>16668643
>the self is manifested socially
Not if you're being yourself

>>16668656
Is this Heidegger's critique of technology?

>>16668656
i dont like this image please delete it

>>16668662
Even if you’re by yourself, your mental conceptualization is based on the society you’re tethered to to make sense of the world. The only way to be yourself would be to literally curse the society you came from, abandon them in place of another society. Learn from this new society and exist totally inside it. Once you do that, you walk away to the border between the old society and the new one. By contrast, you might be able to distinguish genuine self-hood. But this understanding would be incommutable because no one else would have the references needed to build meaning.

>>16668656

>>16668643
>the self is manifested socially
False, the self is the conscious witness of everything the mind and body does. This remains true regardless of social considerations.

> It’s jew tricks to confuse you.
How ironic when you are arguing against there being a self just as (((B*ddhism))) does

>>16669506
obviously the j*ws don't want you to place importance in society. Marx talked about this already. The j*w require their own social axioms to be valid in any society they try to invade. From their, they corrupt the rest of the axioms of the greater society.
Your "self" is made up of axioms that you can only get from correlated consciousness. Unless you're an autist, these correlation are 1:1 to your upbringing. If you're an autist, you're aware of the irony, inconsistencies and hypocrisy of social interactions. You realize that the underlying authority for establishing social identity is pure power and want and NOT what your mother/father told you when you were a kid.
It's not Buddhist because I'm not saying there is no self. I'm saying the self is comprised of societys correlation that your ego is necessarily influenced on your attempts to reach understanding. Unless you can reach understanding from other societies. This will result in a different "self." But at no point is the self "yours."

>>16669488
BASED

>>16669488
Fucking epic.

>>16669545
>Your "self" is made up of axioms that you can only get from correlated consciousness.
No it’s not, that’s clearly wrong. Correlations only occur to and are witnessed by conciousness. Correlations is a form of comparision, comparisions are not-self apprehending, the act of correlating does not observe itself as its own concious entity, correlations are observed by a consciousness which apprehends them, that apprehending consciousness or sentience is the self, so the self cannot therefore be a product of that correlation. Whatever you posit as a correlation, the self is the observer of that correlation and is thus different from and not constituted by it.
>Unless you're an autist, these correlation are 1:1 to your upbringing. If you're an autist, you're aware of the irony, inconsistencies and hypocrisy of social interactions.
You don’t have to be an autist to recognize this but it doesn’t change the fact that the witnessing consciousness is the self
>You realize that the underlying authority for establishing social identity is pure power and want and NOT what your mother/father told you when you were a kid.
Social identity and ego are not the observing conciousness which is the self, the self observes those as its objects. If you didn’t observe your own ego and social identity as something fundamentally different from the conciousness which apprehends them then you would be unable to describe them
>It's not Buddhist because I'm not saying there is no self. I'm saying the self is comprised of societys correlation
You are simply confusing the ego with the self

>>16669488
BASED

>>16668659
that wojak do be lookin like a qt twink doe

>>16669488
Amazing

>>16670111
>im actually an empty husk being piloted by a foreign body!
literal NPC theology, no wonder this shit never got big in india

>>16670159
wouldn't you be a product of your environment?

>>16669488
nice

>>16670111
Interesting. It's fascinating that you end up with the conclusion that I'm confusing the ego with the self and I think you're committing a category fallacy. Fascinating because I reached the conclusion before reading yours. So we both think we're talking past one another.

What made me think it category fallacy:
>Correlations only occur to and are witnessed by conciousness.

This seems redundant and no reason to think they're two distinct things.

>Correlations is a form of comparision, comparisions are not-self apprehending, the act of correlating does not observe itself as its own concious entity, correlations are observed by a consciousness which apprehends them, that apprehending consciousness or sentience is the self, so the self cannot therefore be a product of that correlation.

How can you distinguish apprehension from correlation. Assume you comprehend correlation, it becomes an infinite loop when you try to ground the comprehension with correlation.

>Whatever you posit as a correlation, the self is the observer of that correlation and is thus different from and not constituted by it.

When I mentioned the grounding before, you're trying here to ground the phenomena outside correlation and within the observer. What is the observer but correlations?

>You don’t have to be an autist to recognize this but it doesn’t change the fact that the witnessing consciousness is the self

You are correct. I have little room to type for nuance but yes. Some "normal" people can achieve this point of understanding where they see many roads diverge. As different people filter in and out of their lives, they can see things that weren't there before. This requires astuteness for correlation.

My emphasis on autists (and schizoids) is that they fundamentally can't correlate societal respect with societal epistemology. That forces them to be outsides and nearly objective witnesses of the societal epistemology but we can only correlate the objectivity to the degree with can account for the mental illness. Since the mental illness renders the individual more universally human by the absence of particular social dogma.

>If you didn’t observe your own ego and social identity as something fundamentally different from the conciousness which apprehends them then you would be unable to describe them

Ability to force correlation. If we are say that this marks the distinct human, then ok. I'm in agreement. But then this observer becomes a spook that can only be outlined by further correlation. What remains is whether this "further correlation" is something critically done through method or through speculation and experiment. Regardless, whatever the observer is will be determined through correlation.

>>16668590
How do I contact an autism guide or whoever to help me take care of myself and support myself? My father did not want me to be tested because he thought I would get made fun of for it like he was back in the day. He said I would "grow out of it." I really dread bridging this topic with him but I need to care for myself and live on my own. I can't spend 15 hours a day rocking back and forth listening to music anymore.

Serious answer

Fucking nerds trying to dissect the self, just be yourself unironically

>>16668590
BTFO'd by Beecoming

>>16670343
kill the ego and THEN be yourself

>>16670353
you need to kill the ego and be yourself without ever consciously thinking or choosing to do so

>>16670347
The spirit of Beecoming is the spirit of exploration: >>16669896

>>16670328
Reddit has autism subs that provide a safe environment to ask questions. You’ll get a lot of personal support but also some people may be able to provide service access.
Psychiatrists may be able to help with medicine. You have have anxiety thing.
I’m taking ashwagandha (black pepper extract) before bed and it’s making me more relax. You can buy it over the counter and online.
Another thing you can do is read about autism. You may be able to redirect your anxiety to something more productive.
I advice /fit/ and working out. A door pull up set and some bands is all you need for a home gym. And learn body weight exercises and/or running.
Don’t let your doubt get in the way. Don’t be afraid to challenge preconception. Learn to pursuit and keep happy thoughts.

>>16668590
Never

>>16669488
Powerful

>>16670381
I checked there and it seems to me like a bunch of 20 something girls "I'm quirky but undiagnosed." I don't need help from those people. I need actual professionals to help me manage my own life and social activities.

>>16669488
Inspiring

>>16670428
It depends on the subs. There's a few and they range with how serious they are.
You mentioned professionals but also said your dad is a problem, trying to gauge how low key you want to be. Either way, a psychiatrist will recommend you pills to make you less anxious. That's the fastest professional route.
A psychologist will make you read a book like Feeling Good, David D. Burns. You can also read The Divided Self. But the only hope there is that you see how you can impact your own life through self-therapy.
Personally I bike and exercise and that helps me. Might not work for you. Rather than professionals to help you, if you center your life around /fit/ you'll make enough self-progress and build up self-momentum that you'll suddenly find yourself in more productive routines. But you're still going to come to psychological hurdles you'll need to push through.
No professional is going to grab you and make you right, they can only empower you. Right now you're looking to learn how to consciously manage your abilities.

>movies about self-insert female protagonists who have hardcore sex with rich, goodlooking badboys
>smash hit success with female demographics

>>16670544
the self insert females are basically just ordinary women though, so yeah they are being themselves

>>16670159
That’s not what I’m saying, you evidently lack reading comprehension. If you are the self (and you most certainly are) which is the apprehending consciousness then that self is not foreign but the opposite of foreign. The body is foreign to you because you observe it as something different from you. People who believe themselves to be the body instead of the conscious self which observes that body are confused about their identity, falsely believing themselves to be the unconscious objects which they observe. You appear to be confused in this way, but I am not. The true NPC Indian ideology is Buddhism, which mostly denies that we have a witnessing consciousness which is different from sensory perceptions and individual thoughts etc, just like NPCs lack inner experience, just like NPC ‘philosophers’ like Dennett etc deny the reality of our consciousness; and this is confirmed by how countless NPCs, materialists, Sam Harris types etc latch onto it

>>16670511
>No professional is going to grab you and make you right, they can only empower you

Very tue point, have experienced this myself first hand. Went to see a psychologist with the expectation that he could cure me in some sort of way. Truth is that you can only do so yourself. Best thing a profesional can do is send you in the right direction. In my case he also failed at that, but that is another story.

>>16670315
>This seems redundant and no reason to think they're two distinct things.
Oh really? And why is that? You surely admit correlation to be a mental activity do you not? For whom does that activity occur? Correlation involves two or more things being correlated by the mind, does it not? When the mind focuses on one thing to the exclusion of all others, there are no longer two things being correlated by the mind, but you remain conscious of what is going on and conscious of the fact that your mind is focused on something, therefor the difference of consciousness from correlation is established. When you feel a sudden pain, or a blast of cold from a sudden gust of wind, your mind is not correlating two separate things, the sensation is immediately given to one’s conscious presence as an experience, and then, after it is already a content of our experience, then the mind begins to place it in context and relate it to the source of that sensation, but not before.

>How can you distinguish apprehension from correlation.
Our conscious presence apprehends the world around and the present state of our mind without engaging in activity. Awareness or sentience is luminous by nature, just like light. Things which come into contact or association with awareness are manifested to awareness by that very contact, without requiring any additional action by that awareness; just so, objects which are moved from complete darkness into sunlight suddenly become visible from the fact of their moving into light, without that status of becoming visible requiring any action by or change in the light itself or in the sun which is the source of that light. Correlating is a mental activity which involves the mind relating two concepts. We can notice a before, during and after the correlation of those two concepts, it is a change which comes and goes. During the day when we are awake there is no such before and after in our sentience, it is not an action which our mind engages in, but it is the window through which we observe mental and physical actions, the window through which they make themselves known and experienced. All actions including mental ones are apprehended by its light, just as all objects are made visible to our eyes by light. Light never has actions or deviates from its nature, the source of light may change, but light remains light all the same.

>Assume you comprehend correlation, it becomes an infinite loop when you try to ground the comprehension with correlation.
I’m not talking about grounding correlation with more correlation, that’s your incorrect theory, not mine. Mental modifications like thoughts are manifested to the luminous presence of our consciousness, and that is it. There is no further action or component like further correlation required, no further thing needed for that mental modification to make itself known to awareness. Hence, there is no question of a potential problematic loop.

>>16668590
Lacan’s Lack

>>16670315
>>16671575
>When I mentioned the grounding before, you're trying here to ground the phenomena outside correlation and within the observer.
Phenomena is only “inside” the observer in the sense of forming the content with which it illuminates and with which it is temporarily focused on or occupied, but that is still something separate from or outside of the observer. The witnessing subject is not the same as the (mental or physical) objects with which it participates in a subject-object relation with.

>What is the observer but correlations?
The observer is luminous awareness, the same one through which correlations are observed. If the observer is correlations, the change in the objects correlated would produce a change or junction in our sentience, but this is disproved by the fact that we can switch from one mental consideration (or correlation) to another, without that producing a sudden gap or blank area in our sentience. We don’t flit in and out of consciousness as the contents or objects (i.e. thoughts, comparisons etc) of that consciousness change, but instead there is one steady persisting continuum of consciousness, which successively illuminates different things.

> But then this observer becomes a spook that can only be outlined by further correlation
No it doesn’t, no matter what you do, no matter what you believe, when awake you never have any doubt of the fact that you are sentient, that you have awareness. This self-evident fact of sentience is obvious to everyone and does not need the mind to correlate things for it to be obvious. To engage in the mental act of correlation is to already presuppose that one is conscious and thus capable of doing so. Unconscious things like rocks don’t possess the capacity to engage in correlation.

>>16669506
Lol, you don’t have the luxury of witnessing your body. Everything you know about your body you have been taught. You interpret all your senses through the lens of ideology and beliefs. You are an unnatural creature yearning to be like the animals.

>>16668590
discord.gg/M2k4WbG

>>16671575
>>16671589
I'll start with your closing statement because it shows how our definitions are not in sync.
>Unconscious things like rocks don't possess the capacity to engage in correlation.
By my definition of correlation, the rock is correlated with atoms, gravity, a geographical historicity, etc. The rock's existence is founded on its correlation (everything is relative).
Now the word 'rock' itself is correlated with the concept rock and your conceptualization of 'rock'. Conceptualization is further correlation.
Concepts vary. 'Rock' can be translated to other languages but the translation only has meaning if a human can decipher the word with what should be correlated with the word.
The question 'What does correlation unlock when I think about "rock"? Why am I suddenly inundated with "meaning of rock" when I correlate with the abstract symbol "rock"?'
Here we can only answer through critical method or experimental speculation.
Why do I mean by method? Thus far I've used the word 'correlate' differently from you (not placing blame, but we were working under differing assumptions). These assumptions influenced our methodology, how we carried out/strategized the consequences of what we were saying. We saw our each others conclusions as troublesome until we can correlate some agreement. What is in agreement?
>Oh really? And why is that? You surely admit correlation to be a mental activity do you not? For whom does that activity occur? Correlation involves two or more things being correlated by the mind, does it not?
No, the mind is being correlated at the same time as all the other correlations are taking place. The only difference is we're aware. This awareness falls into a concept outside 'mere co-relation' and into transcendental 'Absolute Relation'. The awareness you're utilizing now is absolutely related to the awareness you had when you were a little kid, it's the same one. It's not correlated to your younger self, it *is* absolutely the same thing.

>>16671913
>Our conscious presence apprehends the world around and the present state of our mind without engaging in activity.
Continuing my methodology, I introduced the term 'absolute relation'. In my methodology, I would re-phrase what you're saying as 'the conscious presence is absolutely related to itself'. Meaning that consciousness doesn't need anything to be or to engage, it is whole. I agree. But at one level the physical universe is maintaining various correlations outside our own awareness. Our awareness is special because it can be aware of itself regardless of correlations. Making our awareness a one of kind objectifying metric ('man is the measure of all things'). It's special because its correlations are full of subjective values and from this the economic awareness can change the value of the physical universe in search of either correlations it predicts or correlations it bumps into.
>There is no further action or component like further correlation required, no further thing needed for that mental modification to make itself known to awareness. Hence, there is no question of a potential problematic loop.
Here you run into the issue I laid out before about the rock being correlated. The universe correlates everything regardless of our awareness. Our awareness can use this indifference for its own exploration but that exploration is only through further correlation.

>>16671925
>Phenomena is only "inside" the observer in the sense of forming the content with which it illuminates and with which it is temporarily focused on or occupied, ...
The only difference is that the observer is 'absolutely related' to itself and thus exists outside of time. It can't measure its own changes but the universe can. Universal metrics can work to break up the 'absolutely related' but while the 'absolutely related' exist within itself it's relation is measured outside itself. For example, the same model human has existed for over 100,000 years. Let's say 10,000 years to play it safe. The difference between the Sumerians, Egyptians, German psychoanalysis, Argentine psychoanalysis is how they correlated their 'absolute selves' via ideological measurements. They cannot literally digest their awareness but they could measure their awareness with their actions. The psychoanalysis use cultural norms to deduce psychological wants based on past performances. Thus the 'absolutely related' is digested and consumed figuratively and measured. Entertaining various possible subject-object relation while staying immutable.

>The observer is luminous awareness, the same one through which correlations are observed…..
This doesn't escape the fact that as a physical universe level all your actions are correlated by physical force and law.

>No it doesn't, no matter what you do, no matter what you believe, when awake you never have any doubt of the fact that you are sentient, that you have awareness. This self-evident fact of sentience is obvious to everyone and does not need the mind to correlate things for it to be obvious. To engage in the mental act of correlation is to already presuppose that one is conscious and thus capable of doing so.
You can only engage in correlation through method or experiment. These actions unlock 'meaning'. Meaning is the name of the game. Why is there meaning? No one knows but they know it persists through correlations.

>>16671595
How fat is your face that you can't see your body good god it must be like cauliflower

>>16669488
After all these years all he had to do was BEE FREE

>>16669488
The bee
He destroyed his chains
Yes
YES
The bee is out

>>16669488
unironically one of the most powerful images ever created.

>>16669488
unironic masterpiece

>>16669488
also checked
include me in the screencap please!

>>16669488
i'm so glad this exists

>>16669488
Absolutely based and checked

>>16669488
based

>>16669488
YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH

>>16669488
the image that saved /lit/

>>16669488
Verily, is this the greatest /li/ post of all time?

>>16669488
>reads dosto once

>>16671913
That we can conceptualize various relations between rocks and other things in our minds doesn't change the fact that rocks are not conscious, they don't possess the capacity for subjective experience. Hence, rocks do not possess the capacity for correlation (in the sense of that being an activity, or in the sense which you are trying to use it as a stand-in for consciousness). We can correlate rocks with other things in our minds, but rocks themselves do not correlate themselves with other things. The inherent relationship between various objects in the universe is not the same as correlating things under what the commonly accepted definition of what the word means. To correlate is not something which inanimate objects can do. There may be inherent correlations already related to them, in the sense that there is a correlation or relationship between different types of rocks all insofar as they are all rocks, but this is different from the sense you are trying to using correlation as an explanation for consciousness. To correlate and to have to capacity to do so =/= already existing correlations between inanimate objects.

>Meaning that consciousness doesn't need anything to be or to engage, it is whole. I agree.
Then you shouldn't be defining consciousness and self as correlation then as you had earlier done. Consciousness, which is its own self, exists as such independently of correlative activity. The original point I made is still completely correct.

>Here you run into the issue
What issue? You don't explain what it is but are just being vague. That there exist inherent relationships between things in the universe doesn't change the fact that our sentience can apprehend things without that involving either mental comparisons or loops.

>observer is 'absolutely related' to itself
No it's not. There is no inherent relationship between the observer and itself, just as there is no relationship between the sun and the sun, they are identical. That which is absolutely identical has no relationship with itself, because itself doesn't exist as a separate thing with which it can have a relation.

>This doesn't escape the fact that as a physical universe level all your actions are correlated by physical force and law.
And? This doesn't contradict anything I said.

>>16669488
>king hours
:°)

>>16669488
Based diamond in the rough post

>>16669488
>king hours
damn right

>>16669488
BASED

>>16669488
yes
YES

>>16669488
God bless this post.

>>16669488
IRREFUTABLE

>>16674349
based

>>16669488
This post deserves it so I'll say it again: BASED

>>16668659
Can someone explain this reference? I know the reference to achilles and the tortoise but I don't understand. Me dumb.

>>16669488

>>16668656
Milking honey out of a bee with no access to flowers?

>>16673333
You confirmed it such with those quads.

>>16669488
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM

>>16669488
Impressive, very nice

>>16669488

>>1666948
AT LAST I TRULY SEE

>>16669488
AT LAST I TRULY SEE

>>16669488
>>16676397
He has escaped the cave.

>>16669488
BEEsed and redpilled

>>16674985
It's to Godel Escher Bach, which has many Achilles/tortoise dialogues regarding recursivity.

>>16669488
Based beyond belief

>>16669488
There is hope for us all

>>16673333
>>16669488
QUADS CONFIRMED WE ARE ALL GOING TO MAKE IT

>>16677040
why yes, we are all going to make it

>>16673859

Are you supporting dualism? The way the rock co-relates with the universe is at a fundamental level the same way our consciousness co-relates with the universe. You make a distinction between the rock's co-relation with everything around it and our conscious effort that stops at apprehension. Apprehension is not co-relation for you. It just is? And it behaves in understanding? Maybe I read too fast but your use of apprehension feels vague.
I would understand apprehension like when your mental consciousness "learns something new" but this learning is just a series of further co-relations. If you have a free-standing apprehension that can walk on its own, then you can say that this apprehension is not co-related to anything specific but universally exists within all relationships as a truth. This is what I would call identity and ties back to my use of 'absolute relation'. Meaning that in every instant of apprehension the 'absolute relation' exists absolutely the same; that's why it works in objectifying the co-relationship as something absolute and beyond itself. The co-relationships are temporal and diminishing but absolute relationship are grounded beyond time.
That we can make sense of and live in a constant state of modulation where we jump from thought to thought while remaining otherwise still means that there is something in us in flux. That flux is measured by relativity. Is the flux the self or is the flux consciousness? Whatever the answer the answer is going to outline co-relationships and absolute relationships. Absolute relationships being superseding relationships that are treated with objectivity but you can't deny they're based on relationships themselves.
What is apprehension beyond mere relationships? An experience of the absolute but this experience can only be materialized in relationships.

>>16669488
Bass'd

>>16669488
Brought a tear to my eye it's so based.

>>16669488
the post that saved /lit/...

>>16672247
kek

>>16677250
>>16677250
> Are you supporting dualism?
Whether I am or not is irrelevant to the present discussion

>The way the rock co-relates with the universe is at a fundamental level the same way our consciousness co-relates with the universe.
Completely false, while it is true that there are natural pre-existing relationships between everything in existence; for some reason you keep trying to blur the boundaries between sentient things and insentient things without any basis for doing so. Similarly, you are trying to use rhetorical sleight of hand to falsely equivocate correlations *as these preexisting relationships* with correlation *as something the mind does*; this is sophistry. They are totally different, the first is a conceptual abstraction, like Platonic forms or justice; the second is an non-abstract activity engaged in by the minds of living beings. So no, what you are claiming is not true. When I correlate two specific things in my mind, this has nothing to do with the abstract inherent relationships between things which existed independently of and prior to my specific mental activity of correlating. Rocks may be considered to have correlation in the first sense, but insentient things by definition cannot correlate in the second sense.

>Apprehension is not co-relation for you. It just is? And it behaves in understanding?
Yes

>I would understand apprehension like when your mental consciousness "learns something new"
Then you clearly have a faulty understanding of apprehension. Apprehension is not the same as learning. Someone can remain totally motionless for an hour staring off into space, not learning anything whatsoever in that timeframe, but they nonetheless continue to apprehend the objects around them and the fact of them sitting there etc; therefor apprehension is not in any way synonymous with either learning or correlation.

>If you have a free-standing apprehension that can walk on its own, then you can say that this apprehension is not co-related to anything specific but universally exists within all relationships as a truth.
It exists outside of and independently of all relationships

>>16678887
>>16677250

>This is what I would call identity and ties back to my use of 'absolute relation'. Meaning that in every instant of apprehension the 'absolute relation' exists absolutely the same;
You haven't shown sufficient justification for applying the term “absolute relation” to sentience or consciousness. Since consciousness is itself not a relation, it is a mistake to apply the term “relation” to sentience, even under the qualified form “absolute relation”

>Is the flux the self or is the flux consciousness?
the self and consciousness are one and the same thing, which is not a flux

>Whatever the answer the answer is going to outline co-relationships and absolute relationships.
False, for the reasons adduced above

>Absolute relationships being superseding relationships that are treated with objectivity but you can't deny they're based on relationships themselves.
false, ibid

>What is apprehension beyond mere relationships?
Independent, self-established, self-luminous consciousness

>An experience of the absolute but this experience can only be materialized in relationships.
false, ibid

>>16678887
>>16678894

When I said "apprehension is when your consciousness learns something new" what I meant was "when you apprehend, you're establishing a relationship." I was thinking of an abstract definition for "learning" for when you just make connections.
But making connections is at the crux of apprehension. If you cannot make connections, you cannot apprehend.
>>Apprehension is not co-relation for you. It just is? And it behaves in understanding?
>Yes
You just said that "apprehension is." This is the exact same thing I'm trying to get across with "absolute relation." I've already stated that the difference between "absolute relation" and "co-relation" is that "absolute relation" is constant and unchanging while the co-relations are subject to change.
Thus what I'm saying allows me to say "the self is an absolute relation regardless of circumstances." In any given circumstance, you have examples of the self but the self is not identical with the circumstance. The circumstances change and thus the self changes but the self also stays the same as the circumstances change because the self is absolutely related to itself in any given circumstance.
>They are totally different, the first is a conceptual abstraction, like Platonic forms or justice; the second is an non-abstract activity engaged in by the minds of living beings. So no, what you are claiming is not true. When I correlate two specific things in my mind, this has nothing to do with the abstract inherent relationships between things
Sorry, don't see how one is non-abstract and the other is abstract you dirty dualist. I knew it. You cannot point to your mind without having a coordinated relationship with your mind. So we're talking right now about the mind but we're not actually talking about anything because the mind is just is and can't be apprehended? It is only that which apprehends?
>You haven't shown sufficient justification for...
Consciousness appeared from evolutionary relationships.

>>16669488
Unironically cheered me up and made me have a good day

>>16679532
w-we're all gonna make it anon

>>16669488
If only you knew how beatiful things could be

>>16672247
>>16669488
perfection

>>16669488
This post is the antithesis to doomerism.

>>16669488
Based doesn’t do this image justice

>>16669488
Based

>>16679466
> when you apprehend, you're establishing a relationship
Demonstrably false, as shown by the example earlier of the apprehension of pain and other sensations; relating things comes after, it is neither synonymous with nor simultaneous with apprehension. The mind relates things, consciousness observes the mind, consciousness doesn’t relate things but only apprehends. Phenomena are apprehended by consciousness, and then consciousness observes the mind relate that to other things.
> But making connections is at the crux of apprehension.
demonstrably false, see above
> I've already stated that the difference between "absolute relation" and "co-relation" is that "absolute relation" is constant and unchanging while the co-relations are subject to change.
This is utterly without any significance because as I have explained already it is a misnomer to apply the term “relation” to consciousness or the self (same thing)
>Thus what I'm saying allows me to say "the self is an absolute relation regardless of circumstances."
False, because the labels you are using like relation are incorrect and inapplicable
>In any given circumstance, you have examples of the self but the self is not identical with the circumstance. The circumstances change and thus the self changes
False, the self does not change, consciousness is always the window through which everything else takes place, this is a permanent feature of our experience, it doesn’t change.

>>16681541
>>16679466
>but the self also stays the same as the circumstances change because the self is absolutely related to itself in any given circumstance.
You are imaging relations where none exist. There is no relation between 1 and 1 other than sameness, but this relation is only a figment of our mind, in truth that which is one and the same thing does not have a relation with itself. Things only have relations with other things, never with themselves. The very meaning of the term relation involves multiple components being related, if there are not multiple components to be related there is no real relation. The relation you are trying to imply exists is purely verbal and imaginary, it has no significance or corresponding reality to it.
> Sorry, don't see how one is non-abstract and the other is abstract you dirty dualist. I knew it.
You can’t directly experience the factor which unites all rocks, you can’t experience as a sensation or as a witnessed object the abstract relation by which all cows of various sizes and colors are united in cowness, you can only perceive individual cows of varying qualities, but neither those individual cows not their specific qualities are strictly identical with the relationship which unites all of them as cows. Unlike the above example you can directly experience your mind relating things. When you think about how one thing will affect another, like when you think about how a spice will impact the soup you are considering adding it to, you are directly experiencing that relation, unlike the abstract relation of cowness which you never experience.
>You cannot point to your mind without having a coordinated relationship with your mind. So we're talking right now about the mind but we're not actually talking about anything because the mind is just is and can't be apprehended?
False, I said that about consciousness, not the mind. Consciousness is different from the mind. Consciousness observes the mind. Consciousness just is, this is not true of the mind but the mind engages in activities and relations.
>It is only that which apprehends?
That’s consciousness, not the mind

>>16669488
Inspiring

>>16669488
fly
Fly!

>>16682831
Where?
:(

>>16669488
this post is hitting at the right time
we are all going to make it thank you champion of the bees

>>16669488
The Bee
He destroyed his cage
yes
YES
The bee is out

>>16682994
based

>>16669488
Great, now make this post again but wire all the (You)s to me

>>16683647
(You) couldn't handle the pure basedness anon

>>16682856
Anywhere

>>16669488
Whoa...

>>16681541
>>16681550
>in truth that which is one and the same thing does not have a relation with itself
To make it clear, I'm defining the "absolute relation" as a negative. The self could be infinite and I think the self is unintelligible. The stress I put on "absolute relation" means that the self can only be made intelligible within relationships. Without a relationship, the self is absolute but this is meaningless, absurd, nonsense.
You keep saying that consciousness is outside relationships. Ok. But the only way we can enter consciousness is within relationships. Relationships are the bread crumbs that lead to the holy land. To the "absolute." YES! There are paradoxes regarding the absolute and particulars but they're intimately related and there's no break between inside and outside relationships. We're using words. Those are forming relationships in each of our minds. These words are conjuring up unorganized implications and our consciousness is structuring and making sense of the unorganized. As the consciousness makes sense, the consciousness becomes embedded in relationships that it cannot deny and must accept as subjectively objective. As subjectively part of the absolute.
>apprehension of pain and other sensations; relating things comes after,
Experiencing pain is an innate relationship that almost all complex animals have. But it's a relationship. An attest to that is that you can become numb to pain.
>You can’t directly experience the factor which unites all rocks
Ok, but my sympathizing/empathizing with the rock doesn't make my experience abstract compared to the non-abstract rock. My experience of relating to the qualities of the rock/cow are non-abstract.
>Consciousness observes the mind.
And this is an action without relationships?

I would be interested in your distinction between consciousness, mind, ego, self. I agree with your ideas. I just see them as fragmented. Once you connect them, my phrasing becomes more relevant.

>>16669488
holy shit

>>16669488
ARMED AND DANGEROUSLY FUCKING BASED

>>16669488
god tier post
>B E f r ee
based
based

>>16669488
fucking based

>>16669488
Unbeelievable post

>>16669488
In the end, all he had to do was beelieve to break his chains
beautiful