Anton Rogachevski

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.

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 Paradigm awareness Lack of attachment Open mindedness Epistemic Humility

@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.

@Ramasta9 The Hyper-Sane is aware of himself and all the "world" as pure hallucination. This is the phenomenological truth of seeing things from an enlightened perspective, but in my dual-epistemic view I still hold that there is something beyond the veil and that is the real Truth, and I am that which I will never have access to, but can only see from within as phenomenon. I can't know it, but I don't need to, I am already it. It's enough for me.

@Cred A very interesting approach. Of course we can't use the old definitions the same way to work with something so extraordinary. We need to redefine.

Ok I agree this is powerful. So by your definition sanity is seeing through false assumptions. It's also a good way of putting it. Just think for a second, there are no "real" or "unreal" paradigms, they are just that - a paradigm, and no paradigm can be the Truth. Enlightenment is post-paradigm, it's not within any framework.

@gettoefl One cannot talk about clarity as separate from sanity. can one have clarity within insanity or sanity and a lack of clarity? sounds like clarity would be an important part of sanity. Your definition of sanity is too far from the usual way it's used, you are moving the goal post too far, and basically saying that it's a quantum leap into sanity. Basically you say it's a miracle, because one insane person somehow stumbles into sanity by mistake. There is a process and there is a degree of increasing sanity in the very process of getting there.

@gettoefl I do envision a continuum of sanity where you can see more and more clearly through illusion and to stay in a non dual state for longer. Of course there are degrees of enlightenment, and many aspects of truth to be revealed. It's not so binary and simple as you are trying to make it. Let's just try to stay open minded about it, and not just say "it's impossible" which is an unfalsifiable claim. We will surely have to redefine what we mean by "sane", making a new paradigm that shows that sanity is not so simple and normal as we thought.

It depends what you mean by that word. If one thinks of God as a king and as a ruler of some sort, then absolutely not. In my conception God is nature, it's a child that sees through our eyes, and learns through our mistakes. It's humble to be it, not arrogant.

I'm not offering answers but asking questions. I would love to know how to assess sanity and how to measure it correctly. I'm sure that we can find a very wise psychiatrist or a psychologist that can make a specialized quiz for this.

Wise of you to play the skeptic. I define it as the ability to perceive reality in the most accurate way. So losing sanity means losing touch with reality, and being sane means staying in as much contact with reality as possible. Check out my journal here in the signature for the two essays delineating my epistemic approach in great detail.

@Breakingthewall People naively believe spiritual ideas, doing spiritual bypass instead of actual personal development, and get stuck in armchair philosophy thinking they are clever.

There can't be such a state as "No God" they are all God's states, even if he's not conscious of it right now.

@Leo Gura Leo, what do you mean by burning "human" ideas, there's no such thing, they are all God's ideas. Unconscious parts of God trying to understand itself. You want to force God to wake up by blunt force, but you can't make a flower grow by pulling it upwards.

Introduction We live in an era of extraordinary clarity. Science has provided us with the "how" of the universe: we understand the movement of planets, the electrical activity of neurons, and the evolution of species. Logic can tell us how the world works, but it cannot tell us how it feels to be part of it, or why we feel such a deep and intuitive pull toward a sense of cosmic purpose. To answer this, we must step out of the lab and enter the realm of mythology. We are not looking for a scientific proof of God. Instead, we are looking for a functional myth: a story that is not meant to be literal fact, but rather a poetic map. A good map does not have to be the territory itself; it only needs to help you navigate within it. This article offers a way to look at the universe that satisfies both the rational mind and the seeking heart. It is a story about a universe that is not dead and cold, but alive, learning, and deeply connected to every breath you take. The Silent Universe If we peel away our names, our jobs, and our personal histories, what remains? Most of us assume there is an "I" that lives inside a body and looks out at a world made of dead matter and cold laws. But there is another way to look at it. Instead of a "dead" universe that created life by accident, imagine that the universe itself is a single living consciousness. In its beginning, this consciousness was like a vast and dark ocean. It had the potential for everything, but it knew nothing. It was "pure awareness" without an object or any way to look at itself. To solve this, the universe began to evolve: it did not just "create" us; it became us. It grew eyes to see itself and ears to hear its own music. To use a striking metaphor [Alan Watts], we are the apples that grow on the tree that is the universe. We are not separate from the tree: we are a direct expression of it. If this is true, then whoever is currently watching through our eyes is God. He is pretending to be "Shimon" because it is part of the divine game [Leela]. He wanted to know what it would be like to be us; in this way, He explores all possible variations, including through the eyes of all living creatures. This can also be seen as a dream [Maya]: God dreams and has forgotten He is everything, so within the dream, He is this character that our ego plays. We call waking up from the dream a spiritual awakening or enlightenment, because then God finally remembers who He really is. The "Child-God" and the Laws of Nature Most religions describe God as a perfect and omnipotent king sitting outside the world. This perception creates a problem: if God is perfect and omnipotent, why is there so much suffering? Our myth offers a different answer: the universal consciousness is like a young child. It is not a finished masterpiece; it is a work in progress. It is not "above" the world; it is the world itself. This means it is subject to the laws of physics and the laws of cause and effect just like everything else in the universe. Just as a child must learn to walk through falls, so the universal consciousness must learn to be "sane" through the long and slow process of evolution. Wars and darkness: These are not punishments. These are the mistakes of a young consciousness learning how to handle its own power. Suffering: Since we are the "eyes" of this consciousness, when we suffer, the universe itself suffers. It does not watch us from a distance: it feels everything along with us. The Will of God The will of God is not a series of supernatural whims or interventions that break the laws of reality. Instead, the Will is the rigid structure of physics itself. It is the fundamental "grammar" of the physical realm that dictates how the symphony must be played. Since the universal consciousness is subject to the laws of cause and effect, these physical laws act as evolutionary constraints within which the Child-God must grow. Gravity, entropy, and the speed of light are not just cold facts; they are the fixed boundaries of the divine consciousness. To be sane means to align your internal simulation with this Will. The Stoics reached an insight very similar to the one we are discussing. They saw the universe as a single rational organism governed by the Logos: a term that for them symbolized both "reason" and "God." For a Stoic, the laws of physics were not just mechanical and cold laws, but the active and living intelligence of the universe revealing itself in real time. In the same way, we can think of the Buddhist principle of non-attachment to circumstances. Why? Because everything will happen according to God's will anyway. Seen through this lens, clinging to the desires of the ego is simply insanity. One could say that no matter what happens, everything will always proceed according to God's will. If you align yourself with this and accept it, you will experience "smooth sailing." This is an excellent psychological tool for dealing with the uncertainty of life. Conclusion: The Awakening of the Whole By positioning God as an evolving child rather than a static judge, we change the nature of human existence. We are no longer victims of a random universe or subjects of a distant king. We are the active front line of a consciousness trying to awaken to itself. The weight of sanity is no longer a personal burden for survival: it is our contribution to the cosmic curriculum. Every time we choose clarity over illusion, every time we practice the skill of deep "not-knowing," and every time we love another being, we clear the vision of the universal consciousness. We are the "caretakers" (it seems we are separate, but actually it is the consciousness itself all the time) who help the deity grow out of its darkness toward the light of full awareness. This story is not meant for proof; it is meant for us to live it. When the "symphony" finally reaches its climax and we return to the silence of the source, we will not return empty-handed. We will bring with us the lessons, the love, and the clarity of a life well-lived. Being the eyes through which the universe sees itself, we help it remember what it truly is.

@UnbornTao Yep so accurate 🤣

I believe we can explain spirituality in philosophical terms, which would make this profound and useful field more accessible while reducing unnecessary friction with rational thinkers. That's what I always try to do - to build a bridge for those at Stage Orange that are ready for the next level and want a no bullshit approach. I'm currently working on a theory that will explicate all of the most important aspects of spirituality. As I'm working on it I would love to have a discussion with you and to help make it better and move it forward, so I'm very excited to share it with you and I would love for you to check out the current most updated version on my blog. ----------- Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework Introduction The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. It also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths. It avoids collapsing into idealism, and there remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory. We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary. So let’s dig in, shall we? Keep reading in the blog for the most updated version.

I'm very excited to present an official edition of the essay, though I'm sure I'll keep working and refining it even further, it's pretty solid as it is. Enjoy, and I would love to hear your thoughts on how to improve it further!

@MightyMind Thank you dear reader, I would love to hear what you think. How could I improve it more?

Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework Before we begin you might want to check out the introductory essay from which this theory stems, as it is more direct and less technical than this one is going to be, and also you will see the thought process under the hood that was involved in developing this theory. Introduction The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. While it also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths, it avoids collapsing into idealism. There remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory. We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary. So let's dig in, shall we? ---- Update: For the sake of discussion I'd made the essay's draft available so you may read more if you like.