Anton Rogachevski

@Leo Gura I'm afraid what you are offering in the blog, to "transcend humanity" and to become "post human" or God would be theoretically impossible as you are currently in a human vassel, yes you are God, but forever limited by your humanness by the inherent limits of this avatar. That's the story of Lucifer basically, but he wanted the other way around, he was Pure Godness, but wanted to be human, so became corrupted and limited. A plant can't decide to transcend itself and become a conscious animal. The very idea of transcendence is quite sketchy in my eyes, but sure you are welcome to try and show us. I think it might be psychologically dangerous, so I must warn you, but sure go ahead dude. You can purify this vessel to a point, and be sage like, but that's the max.

That is incorrect. "Humans" can't make it up, God can, and he did, it was necessary for him to learn all the good and bad lessons the hard way, they way evolution works. God isn't absolved from the evolutionary process, rather it is the evolutionary process. You are trying to judge the flower to grow faster, but nature doesn't work the way you want it to.

Of course it is, if the survival of the jewish people wasn't threatened they wouldn't need Zionism. They can't just forget their identity and pretend they are not jewish. There were many Jewish people who tried that, but hitler didn't mind, he looked in the records, and found the heritage. Blaming the Jewish people for antisemitism is the same as blaming rape victims for being attractive to the rapist. I don't see your point. Nationalism is a part of God's evolution on earth, he can't skip that part.

It's not moral. What does this question have to do with survival? Did these kids threaten you? Nature is brutal, many horrible things happen, but they are part of reality, this is the process of God evolving. Who said it was easy?

What is Truth for you? What are your metaphysics? You are being quite cryptic here. Why is identity contingent upon a forgiving? Who is forgiving whom?

Can contradictions exist in reality? Can reality contradict itself?

I'm resolving this conundrum by not being an Idealist, but by an epistemic duality and call the truths of perception Phenomenologically True. If you are hallucinating a unicorn right now, it's True that you have that experience, it's self evident and empirical data about the nature of experience. Nothing about it is "absolute" besides the fact of your absolute immersion in it. I explain it quite thoroughly in my theory of epistemology, you can check it out in my signature if you'd like.

@Lila9 If something is "real" experientially, does that make it Real? Experience is pure hallucination.

@Lila9 Both "separation" and "unity" are concepts. The problem with calling any part of God "corrupt" is creating a separation of nature which there is none. Parts of God are corrupt and evil, the unconscious parts of it.

I'm trying to say that Leo is missing the big picture by pointing at instances of survival as corrupt or wrong or as contradicting Truth. God is a child that learns by mistakes, sometimes that mistake is war ,sometimes it's a Holocaust. It's not that simple.

This makes me quite skeptical of all the "existential" or "truth" matters. What's more true than the need of a living creature to survive? Trying to look for absolute truths in such a vast and a divided reality looks silly to me. It's so natural for a unified consciousness to look for unity in reality.

@Leo Gura What's the problem with survival? It's the most essential force of nature, driving all of the living creatures. Of course it's better to be conscious of it, but one can't just stop it willy nilly, that would contradict nature, and therefore God. God wants to survive through all the living creatures.

@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

We usually think of sanity as binary, either on or off, at most maybe someone is more insane than the other, and never think about what is the positive aspect of gaining more sanity than normal, what we call in the spiritual sphere more enlightened or awoken. The ability to see reality as it is more accurately, to be even more sober than the norm. If this is true, then we can make a predictive model of enlightenment if we find ways to measure higher levels of sanity and so prove that sanity is central to the philosophical pursuit of the understanding of Metaphysics. We don't usually think of philosophy and psychology together but we should. We should first ask how sane and lucid the philosopher was when he declared his metaphysical statements, and even better to find a way to quantify and to measure his levels so we can know who to trust. Update Edit: I'm building a list of the required components of Hyper-Sanity, what else do you think comprises this meta structure? High Awareness Multi-Perspectival Fluidity Epistemic Humility Non-attachment to emotion Semantic Precision Highest Virtue and Universal Ethics

@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.