Anton Rogachevski

@Cred Good luck my friend, I hope you succeed! Keep at it 💪

@Cred Ok you should stick with this for while, this is great phenomenology and cognitive science. What leads you in this direction? What would you like to achieve?

First write your thesis on what Neurodiversity is, it would be interesting to discuss. Metaphysics is a nice mental exercise for sure!

I don't even know what "Absolute" is. This should be grounded in direct experience to contemplate it. You can't just invent an idea of an "Absolute" out of thin air.

Nice Leo Logic detected

First define both and then explain why you are saying they are the same. Are there facts ontologically speaking? What does it mean for a fact to exist? Where does it exist?

@Cred My whole problem with Modal logic is that it's hypothetical and ungrounded. "This could be and this could be" ad infinitum. Let's look at what is, what is right in front of you? Not what it could or couldn't be because of some ethereal concept like time or space or whatever.

Try this. Paste your theory into an AI (I love gemini's thinking model, but Claude is also supreme for this) then paste my objections, and ask it questions. It's good at making 1+1 like that. You can pin the chat as Theory and keep coming back, asking more questions, ask it to ask you questions.

How do you conclude that facts = existence? You start your theory by assuming there is only the absolute, and this is question begging. How did you reach that conclusion? For what reason did it suddenly decide to fragment? You assume the existence of change and time based on the first unquestioned axioms, and aren't "change" and "time" the same thing? Ok you do need space for anything to be. I didn't understand why you need "wholeness" at all I can't understand why "reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness" how did you conclude that? It would be much easier to say all of this in one sentence. You are consciousness itself or spirit, and you constructed all these ideas. But you could simply avoid constructing them all the same. Just be pure consciousness

@Cred Sure you can have a good final paradigm to rest upon, but surely not to hold on to. Send me the stuff, I'll be glad to check it out my friend.

@VeganAwake The epistemically untrained mind of low sanity collapses into beliefs without noticing. You can't just chose to not believe anything from this place. You are thrown into many unquestioned and even unconscious beliefs. The work is working your way out of this mud with high sobriety to reach the true sanity I'm trying to delineate here.

@Cred How do you define reason? How can you trust it? I'm trying to say that sanity is a meta structure that has many parts, and reason is one of them, but not the whole thing. Surely i would be problematic to say that someone is sane but unreasonable.

Reason is only a small part of sanity I think.

@VeganAwake Did i say i was? The one who stops asking questions is epistemically doomed to be stuck in closed-mindedness and dogma.

@gettoefl Agree. For sure I wasn't saying that all paradigms are equally untrue, so yes they can be helpful. After all, without them we wouldn't have been able to get to where we are now in this discussion. So sanity is also the clear awareness of paradigms without attaching itself to any of them. It would be so hard to measure to this.