Cred

Replace lie with delusion, and I'm with you. I don't think they consciously lie this much, I think a lot of times they actually delude themselves into those positions. Edit: Wait wait wait wait it seems you meant conservative public figures, yeah I'm totally with you with those, they lie A TON

omfg I fucking forgot about that thanks for reminding me lmao😂

Bro would you still consider drooling over dicks and going out of your way to image getting railed just embracing your feminine side 😂 I'm not saying that if you like to experiment carrying yourself in a more feminine way or dress in a more feminine way automatically makes you bi. (I'm saying this as someone who has experimented with that too, wearing pearl jewelry and wearing feminine tops/crop tops as a straight male.) But obsessing about cocks is a completely different story imo. Like, what would be the alternative? Saying that "just because you like men and big cocks doesn't make you gay"? I like skepticism but if you like cocks then you are someone who likes cocks it's just a tautology. Yeah agree, I hope it doesn't come off like I want to shame him. Being closeted is obviously a painful thing. I just thought this video is funny af. Also the editing is gold in this video imo

enjoy

@oOo Thanks a lot for the encouragement! I'm still believing in the potential of this model and am still working on it. Right now it's kinda a slow cooking phase. Since It is an ontological theory, it makes sense for me to delve into the relevant literature. So this is what I'm doing right now. Luckily, a lot of the big works in western philosophy on the topic are written in German, which is convenient. Maybe I will make another post, summarizing the state of the model at that time. However, the theory is kinda too big already to really meaningfully be able to summarize it in a single post. Maybe I will make a pdf or something. For those that are interested, my current reading list that is totally too ambitious is: Aristotle - metaphysics Descartes - meditations Kant - critique of pure reason Hegel - phenomenology of spirit Kirkegaard - on anxiety Husserl - cartesian meditations Heidegger - being and time Satre - being and nothingness Adorno - negative dialectics Rosa - Resonance

Thanks for posting! The part with "not being able to trust you own judgement" is very true for me. Me being stubborn sometimes on this forum has kinda been my way of finally learning this skill.

Quote (Jeffrey Sachs) "[...] The US is playing a game. It's a dreadfully dangerous, misguided game. I hope people in Taiwan understand, my god. I said to the Ukrainians: "do you really want to be the Afghanistan of Europe?" And I would say to the Taiwanese: "Do you really want to be the Ukrainians of East Asia?" The answer is absolutely no. [...]".

I want to contemplate on what status is. I think it is much deeper than some people think. I believe, when people chase status, they are doing the same thing as us which is trying to live a meaningful life. What people need to realize is, that it is not obvious at all that sitting alone in a room and thinking about stuff is meaningful. Especially if you are not particularly good at thinking. They are getting their meaning from socializing, approval and identity. Now one could judge this and say it's shallow and external or superficial. But I want to give a different perspective: What if we are the ones who are only superficial when it comes to seeing meaning in connection? What if these supposed status chasers are as brilliant at seeing the value in social relations, as we are in seeing meaning in theory?

(Thanks for reminding me of causation. I will add it to the list of bimodals. I'm not claiming anything is causing anything.) Yes I agree the modes arise from convergence. Also, I agree that the modes are reducible to ontological existence (I think I'm calling this neutral mode of existence ontonic, and it might be where the term "non-duality" fits neatly into my model) Here is a wild shower thought. Maybe convergence is actually the topic of the myth of the tower of babel. If every human was perfectly ontonic, then everyone would live in total harmony with each other or at least in modal alignment. But it would maybe also mean, that we were all too buisy with building a tower and archiving enlightenment that we would forget to care about survival, which is why convergence and the differences between the modal profiles of different people have evolved. Just a thought. Not a formal point.

Just having red a little bit about convergence, I 100% agree with your emphasis on it. I wrongly assumed that it is only a holotaxonic concept at best, but I now realize that it can totally be used as an omnimodal tool.

Cheers! Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. I will need some time to ponder on your points. As you might have guessed, I still don't fully understand your point about convergence. I'm sure it's a substantive point, I will just need some time, since we don't share the same background. I'm planning to respond to your points. It is totally okay if you don't take the time to read them since you already invested so much of your time already, and I'm thankful for that. Edit: Wait wait wait wait I think I understand our problem. I've just realized, that convergence psychology is a thing. I thought convergence is a term you INVENTED (Lmao speaking of projection I sometimes can't with myself hahahaha). I will now research about it and then I will likely be way more able to integrate it and give you a proper answer. Thanks for bringing it up, it seems interesting and relevant! (Yeah, so your frustration with me is totally justified)

exactly

Yes, this is exactly right. There is fundamentally just one mode, which is existence, and I am trying to describe all its (hopefully linear) manifestations, and it's transcendence in human experience. When you say, this one mode is experience, then I say you are on a great track to understand ontomodality because it seems you value contemplation. What you need to realize is that experience can not be the most fundamental mode, since it assumes a subject, while "existence" doesn't. Contemplation can become way more powerful when you use ontomodality to gain the ability to suspend assumptions about the subject or theories about psychological primitives or whatever. At the end, to reach transmodality, you, of course, also have to suspend all knowledge about ontomodality. But it might be the last steppingstone to reach it for a semiotaxonic person.

No, I'm not using AI for writing and when I do, I will disclose it. (Yes, my hands indeed hurt from all the typing) The reason how I can be so productive is because I currently invest all my energy into this. This also functions as an experiment on ontomodal alignment.

@oOo I agree with most of what you're saying. But it seems like there are some misunderstandings. (Also I have realized some of these issues myself and fixed them by now) The most important thing to realize is that ontomodality is not a psychology model anymore. So when you say "what your model describes is just a manifestation of physical reality" then I say, physical reality is just a manifestation of what my model describes (both statements are true depending on the lens). The reason why you believe that physical reality is the source of every structure is because it's true for you. It is important to note that I'm not saying you're deluded, that you have to see it like me and that your observations are not relevant, which they are since I want my model to be true regardless of the lens. So I'm encouraging you to keep critiquing ontomodality from the holotaxonic perspective. The Problem with essence When I'm using the word existence, I don't mean essence. My model does not pose there is existence outside the now. It seems to be a blend of ontology and phenomenology: While ontology asks "what exists" and phenomenology asks "how is reality appearing in the now" while ignoring existence (epoché), my model seems to ask how existence itself appears in the now. Since I'm not a formally educated philosopher, I don't know if this is novel or even makes sense from the academic perspective, but I am planning to figure it out. I hope you can see now that my methodology is entirely different from that of a medical student. The problem with stability I completely moved away from the claim that it is inherently special, how I chose the different modes. I think it's cool that the ones that I chose each point to some unique existing metaphysical theory (which makes analyzing them a lot easier). I also moved away from the claim, that unimodality is somehow more stable or better or more enlightened than polymodality for that reason. I look at ontomodality from the perspective of linear algebra. First a simple example to make it easier for people who are rusty on linear algebra: If you want three directions (that are invertible) to traverse all 3d space, all you need to ensure, is that they don't lie on a plane, since then you can only traverse the 2d space of that plane. This means they need to be linearly independent. The big metaphysical idea the model is based upon, is that human existence can be described by something like an N-dimensional vector space. (I don't know what N is. It might very well not be 6). What linear algebra now tells us, is that it does not matter which N vectors you choose, as long as they're linearly independent. Because if they are, you will still be able to span the entire N-dimensional vector space with them. (It is important to note that linear algebra show up in a lot of places) So my approach is to keep searching for more modes that are orthogonal to the rest of them to increase the number of dimensions, my basismodes are spanning. For example If I would throw "language sensitive" in the mix, it would not expand the current vector space with one additional dimension, since language is semiotaxonic. This means that taxonic, semionic and language-mode (Logonic or whatever) are not linearly independent. And the Loginic mode can be archieved through the mix of the Semionic and Taxonic modes. Now, the most elegant way to do this is to normalize them (make them equal (to one)) and to make them orthogonal (this would make them "orthonormal basis vectors"). Now applied to the model, this means that each of the modes "should not have any component of each of the other modes" and that they should all have equal emphasis. This is why this is such a language game (and yes, it also happens to be a lot of fun). My theory is that we already have a set of vectors that span the vector space of human existence, which is the set of all words that have ever been invented but that the number N is much smaller than the number of all words because they are not all orthogonal to each other, obviously. Interestingly, this is similar to how word embedding works in large language models. Without learning about LLMs, these insights would have not been inaccessible to me. My goal is to investigate this space and find at least one elegant enough way to span those N dimensions. (I need to find a cooler name for that number like O/Ω) Some questions are still open: Does this even make any sense to bring linear algebra into this How do you prove that the modes are linearly independent How do you normalize/equalize the modes Here is a short by 3blue1brown that might clear up the idea of viewing language as a vector space: