Cred

I believe this compulsive self critcism, judgement and escapism all comes from neurodivergent people who don't know they are neurodivergent. The more I live in accordance to my neurodivergence, the more I'm able to accept matter reality.

I think the daoists have understood it. They also have the concept of emptiness, but they don't case it. Being in the dao means to just let things happen and when this means engaging with material reality so be it and when that means going into meditative states and reaching emptiness so be it. Don't cling to anything, don't reject anything. Just let yourself go without judgement. I think this is true freedom. Way more free than compulsively trying to escape the matrix.

When talking about "loosening up patterns" it is important to understand autism. Autism is the love of the repetitive. When the life of an autistic person is chaotic, they suffer and cope with excessive repetitive behavior. This is why you need to be careful of assessing patterns as harmful. This is just like with depression, mania and paranoia and other "pathologies". They have a purpose and the underlying problem does not go away when you try to remove them. When you fight them, they will get worse. When you have autism you cannot exist peacefully without a certain amount of repetition. So you need to really ask yourself if you want repetition in your life and if the answer is yes, allow yourself the amount of repetition that you need. When you do that, the things that you do repetitively will become more and more authentic, less harmful and less compulsive.

I was posting, I am posting, and I will be posting a ton on the topic of neurodivergency. Here is the biggest thread so far:

Yes I had the same thought. When you become too obsessed with escaping all dogmas, then the avoidance of dogmas becomes itself a dogma

@James123 How do you make decisions with your philosophy?

Speaking of explanatory power, let's tackle this objection. I completely agree with the first sentence. What I don't agree with is the claim that the Fragment does not help in analyzing immediate reality. It might have been a rhetorical question but let's actually analyze the computer. My claim is that there are infinite ways to engage with a computer and all of them are manifestations of the Fragment. You could ask: "What am I sensing?". You are only able to even ask this question bc of Sensibility of being (former name: Interaction) Without Sen' you don't have sensation You could ask: "What does it weigh?". This is Differentiality of being bc weight is a way of differentiating. You could ask: "What do I want to do with it?". This is Impulsivity of being bc an action requires an impulse. You could ask: "What can I do with it?". This is Potentiality of being bc seeing potential requires potentiality. You could ask: "How does this object fill space? How tall is it? How wide is it?". This implies Spaciality of being bc filling space requires spaciality You could see it as a whole that is made out of multiple parts. This requires Wholeness and Differentiality of being. You can just see it as the symbol "computer" which you've learned from other people. When you do this you are syncing up with the narrative of the computer and this requires Simultaneity of being. You can ask multiple different questions in a sequence, but this requires Sequenciality of being Any way you can see it results from one or a combination of these. You are welcome to try to give me exceptions. There is actually one exception which is when you see it as emptiness sunyata. This requires you to shut off all of the fragments of being. I say this is easier to do if you know about all the different fragments.

No I don't think so. One example would be "toughness" or "hardness". You can't say that the attribute hardness is necessary for the universe to exist because a universe where no hardness exists would be imaginable. It would just be a universe that only contains gas or something. Yes of course you can summarize all 8 aspects into one but than you would just have another useless abstract metaphysical theory with empty concepts that has no actual explanatory power.

For those who are skeptical whether the Fragment has applications, I used the model to analyze sadhus:

This is a really cool observation. Let's unpack this with the theory of the Fragment. Stimming is something that people do who are non-Simultaneity of Spirit. My current definition of autism is: low Simultaneity of Spirit and high Sequenciality of Spirit. But it's also something that HSPs do and my definiton is: low Simultaneity of Spirit and high Sensibility of Spirit. So when you see someone stimming they are either autistic, HSP, or a hybrid. Spoiler: I suspect most people on this forum to be hybrids. When you have high Simultaneity, you are really good at processing a lot of information at the same time. This is done through the symbol and conformity. If a Simultaneity-being is in a stadium for example, there is a shit ton of stimulus. Yet the being knows exactly what do without processing every stimulus individually, bc they just do what everyone does and "sync up" (conformity). When you have low Simultaneity, you don't have this efficient way of processing and struggle in environments with a lot of parallel stimulus. This is why you prefer simple singular stimuli which is what stimming is. Your advantage is that you are very honest and uncorruptible, since corruption requires conformity. Also, only low-Simultaneity-beings have the ability to critique culture and go against the norms, which is what a sadhu does. Sequentiality- and Sensibility-beings feel affirmed in their existence through stimming like humming, but for different reasons. This is where it gets super subtle. Seq's hum because a hum is a sound and a sound is a wave and a wave is Spaciousness+Sequenciality. Sen's hum because a hum is the change of pressure of molecules which causes these molecules to interact and therefore sense each other. More simply: a hum is a sensation. The reason why the Spirit (Atman) needs to engage in it's fragments is because there is no existence beyond the fragment. Boyond the Fragment, there is only emptiness (Anatman) non-existence. If the Atman and the Anatman are not in balance with each other, it leads to death and suffering.

Anticipating possibilities is not autism, it is what I call "Potentiality of Spirit". I've laid out my theory of the Fragment here: It's more closely related to the neurodivergency called "Schizotypy". I've written about it here: You need potentiality of spirit in order to be motivated to chase enlightenment bc enlightenment is something that might potentially happen to you in the future and non-Potentiality of spirit people don't chase visions in the future like this.

You make a logical error when you say this. You have a wrong assumption which is that it requires an endless amount of socializing to find a mate. I've written about this here:

Hi! It fills me with joy every time I'm hearing that someone awakes to their nerodivergency. I have written extensively about the topic on this forum, and I'm currently working on an Ontology of neurodivergency that I call the Fragment. Based on how you write and the fact that you don't seem very active in the personal development section of the forum, I assume that you came to the conclusion of Yourself. This is a big and important step in your development. I came to the same conclusion and made a post about it:

I would rather live in North Korea than in South Korea

It feels to me, you are attacking me more than my theory. Have I attacked you? If so I would like to know when I did that. I feel hurt by your rhetoric

I was working on a moral system the other day, and it turned out that it is hard to define what evil is. I'm a satanist and I don't believe that cruelty or selfishness are evil and love and altruism are good for example. I came to the conclusion, that morality might not be absolute, but a historical process and different levels of scarcity necessitate different moral systems. I came to the conclusion, that self-hatred is the "last of the evils" so to say. However, self-hatred is only a symptom. I believe that the cause of self-hatred is virtue and the "good vs bad" dichotomy itself. If you think about it, it makes complete sense from a mythological standpoint. Lucifer is the most sneaky force in the universe, wouldn't it make sense for it to win the war of good vs evil by embodying the war itself? Any time you affirm virtue, goodness, beauty, ability, competence, etc. you participate in the war against the respective opposite and therefore are evil, if it does not come from a place of scarcity. The alternative that needs to be put forward to replace virtue is authenticity. Don't ask: Is it good? Ask instead: Is it authentic? Only if one replaces virtue with authenticity, radical self-acceptance is possible, since virtue is too restrictive. Think about it. If you engage in a restrictive (moral) system, how do you expect to be able to breathe freely? Since I ditched virtuousness I feel so alive and have never been this productive.

@kavaris I want to start by saying that it is not like I'm pulling these insights out of my ass. I have observed neurodivergence very deeply in others and myself. Also, I have written about the subject extensively on this forum and addressed a lot of your objections already. I agree with most of this. I don't believe that every neurodivergent person is spiritually enriched. What did I say that made you think that? I might have misspoken or something I'm curious. A disorder is a way of being that is disaligned with the conventional, hegemonic if you will, way of being. All of the difficulties of a neurodivergent person are not inherent, they come from disalignment. When neurodivergent people manage to change their environment such that they align with it, they can not only function fine, but are also capable of doing things that normal people are incapable of. This is how you get these "functional neurodivergent people". Whether they become hyper-spiritual depends on the neurodivergency. When I prompted chatGPT with "Dyslexia is just a disorder with no upsides, correct?" it gave me: "No — that’s not correct. [talks about the challenges, which I'm not denying] 2. Potential strengths (not universal, but common patterns) Research and cognitive profiling show statistical tendencies, not guarantees. Many dyslexic individuals show strengths in: Visual–spatial reasoning Big-picture thinking Pattern recognition 3D mental modeling Creative problem solving Entrepreneurial thinking Some studies suggest overrepresentation of dyslexic individuals in: Architecture Engineering Design Entrepreneurship Important: this does not mean dyslexia “causes genius.” It means cognitive trade-offs may exist."

@Someone here I don't think we are in disagreement. The argument that I investigated was a fusion of yours and that of Hojo.

What you are describing is dangerous escapist ascetic ideology. The notion that material reality is somehow illusionary and needs to be avoided is outdated. Have you red the religion of tomorrow by Ken Wilber? It is a form of sklavenmoral. If you think about it, those two sentences are in conflict with each other. If god is everything, how is it even possible not to experience god?

In one post I postulated: In another one I argued, that hermeneutics teaches us, that the understanding and therefore the production of a text requires iterative and holistic understanding. It seems that the attention mechanism in LLMs is somehow implementing the Wholeness fragment of Spirit. If this is further investigated, it can lead to ideas on how to improve LLMs and maybe help to develop AGI, if that's even a good thing.

What would you do?

Yes. I already used it to gain insights into why LLMs need both GPUs and CPUs in order to be effective for example: But I don't think much about tech for now. I first want to see if it is possible to ground it in hard science.

Okay let's answer to the objection: "The map is not the territory, therefore there can not be a theory of everything". (MINT) What this means specifically is "the word is not the existence it points to". An example of someone who falls into this trap is someone who reads a description of god experience and then mistakes that description for god without seeking it out in contemplation. The Existence Space It seems that there is a space of all possible "ways" to exist. This space seems to be some weird mathematical object that I'm trying to describe. My theory is, that this space has already been described with language, with each word pointing to some spot in this space. Chopping up this space is arbitrary, and it is a trap to believe that any "chopping" is absolute. However, if you want to learn through distinctions, you will need to chop in some way since you can't differentiate between different existences without the respective concepts, so without concepts, existence is just one big blob. The moment you realize that a word is a pointer and the point of the word is not that you stop at the word but to follow where it leads you, you have made a big step towards becoming immune to the MINT fallacy. Now we're getting technical So what would it mean to have a theory of everything? This is what I mean when I say TOE: A TOE is a theory that gives a method on how to reach every point in this existence space. If this existence space is a vector space, what this means technically is, that a TOE would have to provide a basis of that space, ideally an orthogonal one. It was never the claim that my TOE would substitute existing itself and this is also not necessary. It is a tool to map existence so you can increase awareness on how you exist in the here and now. What is Mathematics? You might say: "The moment you said something about a mathematical object you've lost me. Math is just mental masturbation. It's not empirical". Here is where it gets really interesting. According to my theory, empiricism is a system that assumes, the fragment of Interaction can't be omitted. This is a trap, since it is only one fragment of existence. Mathematics and therefore rationalism do not fall into this trap, which is why they are superior. When you say "mathematics is just a castle that has no basis in direct existence" (I'm trying to avoid the word experience since it assumes Interaction) I say this is sentence is exactly false. I agree that it can be a trap to be so in awe of the beauty of such a castle that you never ask what it actually relates to in reality. So my approach to Mathematics is to primarily investigate the foundations of such castles instead. What exactly does it mean that an axiom is "obviously true"? What makes a good axiom? Hear me out. My take is that the reason why an axiom seems obviously true to you is because you and the axiom are both fragments, and you recognize each other. So when your spirit sees a good axiom it says to itself: "If this is false, then I don't exist". If this isn't beautiful, I don't know what is. I believe that all axioms in mathematics can be derived from the existence of some set of fragments, of which my 8 are a subset. Further, I claim that it can be proven, that these fragments need to exist, since if they don't, reality would collapse. There is the sketch of the proof at the beginning of the tread. I believe that all good assumptions in every other field can also be validated with the fragments. Because of the fragment of Wholeness, every fragment is relevant at every level of granularity of reality. So it seems, the mathematical description of the Whole lies in the fractal. SCIENCE IS SO BACK

Wow, thanks y'all for the encouragement I appreciate it a lot

@jacknine119 It seems you got the whole spectrum of answers to chose from 😂