PolyPeter

What the essay can't say The essay draws the wall as precisely as I could. But the wall wasn't discovered by thinking. I didn't arrive at "presentation can't be fully captured as representation" by working through the argument. The argument came after. What came first was an event where the whole structure that believes itself to be a separate entity inside a larger, indifferent universe was obliterated. Not paused. Gone. And what remained when it went wasn't nothing. It was the only thing that was ever actually there. The Subject. Not a "human" who survived the event, but the condition that the human had been standing on top of the whole time, finally with nothing on top of it. That is what the essay is trying to point at from the inside. This is the thing formalism can gesture toward but never contain: the wall exists because of what's on the other side of it. The essay shows the shape of the wall. It can't show what made it necessary to map it. The connection Every serious contemplative tradition lands on something like this: there is a condition that makes experience possible, and that condition cannot be found as an object within experience. You can see everything that appears. You cannot see what makes appearing possible. Not because it's hidden, because it's not the kind of thing that appears. It's what every appearance is happening to. What the framework adds is precision about why that is, structurally. Not as a mystical claim, as a property of any system that tries to fully contain the condition of its own operation. A system can model itself with extraordinary depth. It can represent every previous version of what it was, inspect its own rules, build meta-frameworks about its own meta-frameworks. There is no ceiling to that climbing. But it can never turn around and catch the thing doing the representing right now, because that thing is not one more representation it can hold. It is what every representation is currently appearing to. The moment you try to make it an object, you have already generated a new layer doing the looking, and that new layer is now the uncatchable one. That regress is not a bug in the method. It is the structural signature of the fact that the one looking was never inside the picture. It was the condition for there being a picture at all.

a black void sounds better

Holy smokes. I'm reading this. Let me contemplate and I'll comeback.

Since I died about half a year ago, when I took dmt, I’ve been trying to articulate several things that became clear from that event. This essay is one of them. It’s called Theory of Precedence. The basic idea is that whatever appears depends on something that precedes its appearance, but that “something” cannot itself be fully contained as an object inside what appears. The essay separates three levels: object, representation, presentation. An object is what is being referred to. A representation is the model, symbol, code, description, or map of it. Presentation is the regime of availability that makes that representation count as a representation at all: interpretation, execution, attention, evaluation, consciousness, etc. The core thesis is that representation depends on presentation. A system can model itself, inspect itself, improve itself, represent previous layers of its own operation, and even build meta-frameworks. But it cannot fully capture the current presentation that makes those representations available without generating a new layer or collapsing the distinction between representation and presentation. So this is not an attempt to “prove God” through formalism. It is more precise than that: it tries to show the structural wall that any representational framework hits when it tries to contain the condition of its own appearing. Metashifting is the operation where a framework turns its own horizon into an object of a wider horizon. You can keep climbing levels like this, and you can even define formal limits of the chain. But the limit of the chain is not Omega. Omega is not the final level. Omega is the precedence from which the whole chain appears as a chain. In short: every representation of presentation appears under a presentation. That is the wall the essay is trying to formalize. Check it out! https://pedrocrohare.com/precedence/en/

Sounds like an intense experience An ontological shock can be very disorienting, I think this is what happened because you mentioned epistemology. In order to give some better advice, I need to know, do you want to ground yourself and come back to stability? Or do you want to explore deeper into the metaphysics of what happened to you?

Hahahahaha @integral Honestly, who can blame anybody for this behavior? human made music is way superior, orders of magnitude across multiple dimensions ai music is unidimensional

great work!! have you ever tried using the llama models over workers ai at cloudflare? it could power your apps without having the users put their api keys!!

Being came before any sort of "caming before"

microdosing (less than 0.3 grams) is good in most cases. for many different reasons, but there are not that many studies.

and the last

and is not just a human thing

yes I think've heard that before... hahaha but why would you compress it? can you expand on the idea? what are some other implications of infinity/god? If God is Truth, and you are God, then You are Truth and then Truth shall set Truth free

Going inside your own self and understanding directly why and how you are creating the depression In this case in particular, there is a fundamental error, It reminds me of this picture I think the distinction that will help you understand the point is the following you can take things as they are or you can take things as you are the phrase "nothing is real, nothing matters, so what's the point" points to some very lazy "smart" logical thinking pattern if you investigate closely, we can be confusing two levels from the point of view of a human: "nothing is real", usually means what i think is solid, is not, which creates structural instability. "nothing matters", would mean the end of purpose, which would create existential instability. of course a human would see this as a threat! it is only obvious when thought through and it would also apply to the smartest fellas, because this is survival instinct kicking in, not just concepts. But, for a split second, try to imagine what would be the meaning of these same sentences, from the point of view of God, with Infinite Imagination and Infinite mind. "nothing is real", yes of course, because I make it real, by imaginining the necessary distinctions within me "nothing matters", no of course, because I precede space, time, energy, and matter. Evolution happens within me, meaning can only arise within the relative domain, I am The Absolute. I think this has to do with the depth of the skepticism being used to understand the implications of things like "nothing is real, nothing matters" there are no limits to what you can be skeptic about. this is why EVEN skepticism could be questioned! when you question skepticism you question the one who questions but upon doing that, you must also be rigourus and skeptic enough there. and try your best to understand WHAT is the nature of that who questions. And then a step further you can realize this is awareness itself consciousness god but maybe this is too much emotional work for a smart fella to handle,it's already very hard to understand that you are in a dream, imagine how much more difficult it is to accept that you are also the dreamer 🫠

I think this is partially there What if the highest form of intelligence has to do with the deepest emotional work you can do? What if the exercise that comes towards you, once you understand something intellectualy and conecptually, is of a different kind entirely? Ok, you got an A+ in understanding structure and behaviour now, let's dive deeper into the nature of Being then you realise the emotional work is just as difficult as the intelectual one, and sometimes even more so because it is tied to survival, cultural conditioning, and maybe some specific background of your own Yes, intelligence can get you depressed, and it takes even more intelligence to realise that you can be smart in different domains at the same time, and that the next level of actualization comes when the integration of the insights becomes a part of your daily life "Oh no, they are behaving in such unconscious manners, if only they knew how things actually worked".... "They don't even know what I already know".... will eventually develop into something like "Consciousness can take up any form within the dream, and because expereience is not just a random set of phenomena and follows a certain localized logic, the dreamed characters and objects will not be ANY, at ANY time. Therefore, the humans that are not operating from the same level of understanding as I might be, are not a mistake or a flaw within the dream, but another way in which consciousness forgot itslef as God, and is playing the game of life with the limitations that are given within that specific character" of course to come to this level of realisation, one must contemplate deep. Try finding the distinction between "We are just drops of water in an ocean" and "We are the whole ocean in a drop", and I think you'll see what I'm pointing at

Why? To who or to what is everything meaningless?