Cred

@Ulax Everything you just said is exactly true. This is what marxism-leninism. (ML) is. This is why the current system in China is so different from that of the UDSSR. It's because, unlike liberals who keep starting war after war, MLs learn from their mistakes. Being a real communist does not mean to expect everybody to run and dance around in a chocolate world like the oompa-loompas directly after the revolution. It means to understand that after the revolution, there is a teeth-grinding and bloody war to be fought against liberalism, the rich and their allies. This death toll, while tragic, is nothing compared to the death toll of capitalism. Comparing capitalism to the revolution is a bit like comparing coal energy with nuclear energy. Sure, the deaths from nuclear accidents are tragic, but the facts say that coal has a death toll that is more than two orders of magnitude bigger than that of the less insidious nuclear energy.

@Kid A Thanks for the perspective! I am planning to look into the data. While I do think that china is overly demonized in the west, I don't want to fall into the trap of overglazing china. Based on my information, things like health care, housing, grocery prices etc. (cost of living basically) are way better in china and maybe I falsely broadended this to "people have it better". When comparing the us to china, it is important to acknowledge that china used to be a developing country just 20 years ago. The fact that they even are at a place comparible to the us is astonishing and a miracle in and of itself. Therefore it is important to understand that a post-revolution western state will look dramatically different than china. Just imagine what the immense wealth of the us could do for it's people. Also as soon as the threat of liberalism is weakened, marxist led states will be able to breathe a lot more freely and therefore be able to allow their citizens a lot more freedom too.

@Wilhelm44 Yes there have been violent revolutions, and? Isn't this an argument to doing this again? You think the french revolution was a bad thing for example? If you do serious research, you will realize that most of what you think you believe about marxist revolutions and the countries that have undergone them is false. You only have to do surface level research to realize that chinese people already have it better than american people. Really the only thing you are not free to do in china is annoy the government with liberalism, which is fair because liberalism is outdated and evil rellative to marxism-leninism. That would be like wanting feudalism back in a liberal state. Doing inner work will not change shit about the fact that rich assholes control you and use your money to fund endless wars. Do you really want to wait until those rich Epstein pedophiles become enlightened and give their power to the people without resistance? Is that your plan? Hate to break it to you but it's not gonna happen. What's much more likely is that the rich turn the liberal state into a fascist state. You are not the fist to claim something along the lines of "spirit is reality". A lot of philosophers in Marx' time believed the same thing. Hegel believed (I think, haven't red him yet), that since spirit is most fundamental, it is also what propells historic change. This is what marx critiqued by agruing that the material conditions actually have the biggest impact on peoples lives and therefore the biggest impact on historical development. For example do you think that philosophising and meditating more has a bigger impact on your life or free housing? The answer is free housing since if you had it, you wouldn't have to work so much to keep a roof obove your head and as a result would be able to philosophise and meditate even more. I want to clarify something. I'm not saying you should pick up a gun. The job of theory minded people to help the revolution is to learn about the theory and the history that is relevant and then radicalize the workingclass by informing them, to make them angry and willing to revolt.

In a different thread, @Joseph Maynor said: "You have to create your own corner of reality where you are deserving, but you also need to relate with others too. Ideally, this is a win-win relation. This requires maturity and owning up to mistakes, no matter who is at fault. And forgiveness." Then I answered: "It is important to note that when you are being oppressed, you don't have to feel like you have to apologize to the oppressor. They might gaslight you into believing that you are also at fault. This is dangerous. Don't apologize to your oppressors. I'm not saying that you can't forgive them. But if they ruined your life, they ruined your life. Period." To which he replied with: "I can see this. Correct. But we also do things to others too. It's not one-sided -- E.g. I'm the victim, not entirely! It's the Nature of Relation, in sickness and in health. This is the entryway to Love." I belive this is a good time to contemplate "what is oppression" and adjacent concepts. Off the top of my head, relevant keywords for possible distinctions are: (win-win) relation(ship) corruption power love survival victim forgiveness

Once you learn to see behind the deception and the propaganda, you will realize that the democrats and the republicans were never enemies. Both parties have only one goal which is to keep the power in the hands of the view. It was always just a big play to get the working class to believe they are free. In reality, americans are among the least free people in the world. At the end of the day, the democrats do the same thing as the republicans but they have a warm smile while they are doing it and play basketball. The moment you realize this, you understand why the democrats are not doing shit. They never really cared about civil rights. They only cared about keeping the working class just happy enough that they don't revolt. You have no idea what it really means to be a leftist. Everyone who you think is a leftist is just controlled opposition. Woke is just controlled opposition. Critical theory is just controlled opposition. What being left really means, and this truth is very well known all over the world except in the west bc of liberal propaganda, is to understand that violence is the only way forward.

Let's goooo! Haven't watched it yet, so I don't know if it's good. I have not observed Alex O'Connors development too closely, but it seems like he becomes more and more open every day. It's really cool to see someone be able to change their perspective and be open like him. He still has a long way to go, but it's nice to see that he is moving further and further away from his old atheist bro stances.

I don't know if I have personalized comments, but it seems like they are happy about the development too.

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

enjoy

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

@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:

I totally get this. The reason why I haven't given you a proper answer yet is because I'm still pondering. Thanks a lot for the engagement!

@Natasha Tori Maru @Joseph Maynor I don't understand what you are trying to say. Keep in mind, I'm not a native speaker (this also goes for @oOo but your replies are becoming easier to read so thank you) If it is "don't post until it is fleshed out" I say I'm happy with how it is now. I have people challenge my ideas and help bring me forward. I'm totally aware that most people who are interested here want to read the finished product. This is the plan, to one day make a post where I present the complete Theory. You people just have to be paitent then. I think that the notes are of sufficient quality for this forum even if they are unpolished.

While we are at it, let's try to find some more of the different modes of the term existence Taxomic existence: Embodying Animonic existence: Experiencing, feeling, sensing Semionic existence: Personifying, meaning, symbolizing Holonic existence: Interacting Volonic existence: Acting Paraonic existence: Parodying, satirizing Ontonic existence: neutral existence Notice that all of these can be investigated with contemplation, not just experience. I think my model might make contemplation a lot more powerful. bimodal Parataxonic: Anticipating (?) (requires openness. Also, Prediction is pattern recognition) also criticizing (if you are criticising and not just satirizing, you are implying a better order which is taxonic) Moving: Volotaxonic (physical and willed) Talking: semiotaxonic (language requires symbols and patterns) Socializing: Holosemionic (Interacting in a symbolic context) Cuteness, eros: Voloanimonic (both cuteness and sexual attraction are subjective feelings with a strong willed aspect. I want to have sex, I want to protect/squeeze the cute being) Causation: Causation is a form of interaction and therefore holonic i think. A causal chain is taxonic. If you think the first cause of the universe is a will, it is volonic, if you think it's for a purpose, it's semionic and if you think it's a result of creation, it's paravolonic. because Creativity: paravolonic. You need a will and openness for something new. There is a lot more but I'm tired