Cred

@yetinetiThanks a lot for the great reply! You really gave me something to think about. You are on the right track, but you are not seeing the full depth of the model yet (neither am I lol). But you are doing very good. The model is more than just the psychology 'model of models'. It is the ontology 'model of models'. (Hopefully at least lol) Your critique assumes that we are still in psychology land, but that's not the case. This is also important for @oOo to understand. Read this very carefully: According to ontomodality, experience is just the animonic mode of existence, embodying is the texonic mode of existence and personifying is the semionic mode of existence. (Transcendence is the transmodal version of "existence" and "Existence" itself is amodal. I guess. I just came up with this lol. Another comment: Transmodal is a mode of being and amodal is a mode of entity. That kinda makes sense. I still need to properly define and differentiate being from entity.) When you say: "You cannot experience the mode of modeling" you are completely right, since modeling is not animonic. But what you are wrongly implying, and this is because you think this is still a psychology theory, is that "experience" is a more fundamental mode of existence than "embodying" (remember: Is taxonic) or "personifying" (remember: Is semionic). (remember: These two are important, since modeling is semiotaxonic.) Which is the case from the psychology lens as the name of the field implies. What this mean is when I try to experience a model, I will fail and feel empty/non-existent. However I can personify-embody it, which is from an ontological (again, not from a psychological standpoint I agree with you there) standpoint just as much a valid mode of existence as experiencing. Be careful now to say "experiencing is still the best mode of existence". Again, this might be true if you are very animonic. However my model predicts, that if somebody has a very non-animonic modal profile, they are extremely insensitive to experience. Have you ever seen people engaging in very self-destructive behavior that is unimaginable to you? This is because they might be very non-animonic. If you understand this, you will realize that your previous conception of reality was actually more distorted than after you learned about ontomodality.

Not having a map aka an ordering of the world means emptiness, no-self, non-existence, fear for me as a taxonic. That's why I am here. And this okay. There is nothing I can do about it. For example I can't just throw out all theories and be pure spirit all the time since I am not unimodally animonic enough. When you say "a model distorts", you pose, that experience is more real than a concept. But that is like saying animonic existence is more real than semiotaxonic existence (which might be true for your ontomodal profile). What I'm saying is that you need to be careful when you attach value to different modes of existence. I'm not saying that you shouldn't rank them for yourself because that's exactly what you should do. However don't just blindly accept someones ranking (by accepting "the map is not the territory" for example) because that ranking might cause you to ontomodally disalign. Edit: I'm realizing the irony of answering this critique from the lense of the model. I think there is a deeper truth to your point but it is kinda hard to answer to this in a meta way when the model is not even fleshed out yet.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Do you use "convergence" the way I use "modal alignment"? Even then, I don't know what you mean

I don't know if it is superior, but I think it's cool that it is rooted in ontology. I think it would be useful if you gave me an example for a relational model that you think is more powerful. Or just some relational model to compare it to.

Quick update and overview: I have changed the names once again to make them shorter and more fitting. Also, I came up with names for the new ones. Modes Taxonic (order, object, matter, external, autism) Old: Hyloexonic Animonic (spirit, psyche, emotion, fantasy, senses, internal, HSP) Old: Phenoendonic Semionic (symbol, conformity, meaning, story, identity, social, togetherness) Old: Semiosynconic Holonic (whole, holistic, interconnected, big picture, dyslexia, systemic, dialectic) Volonic (will, power, action, movement, passion orientation) Paraonic (chaos, absurdity, surprise, comedy, paradox, openness, contradiction, novelty) Geonic (alien, beyond human grasp) I scrapped aesthetic being since beauty is a symptom of modal alignment, not a seperate mode (in my conception). Radom insights Creativity is Paravolonic: Action out of openness, leading to something unexpected and novel. I think schizotypy might be Animaparaonic Other Ontonic (existence, non-duality, being, self, neutrality, ontological, phenomenon, absolute, contemplation) all modes are just different illusory manifestations of this one mode (?). Amodal (Sunyata) (not accessible to a being) Transmodal (nirvana, transcendence, enlightenment) (accessible to a being) Modally aligned (love, fulfilled, existence, self, flow, beauty) Modally disaligned (fear, emptiness*, non-existence, no-self, depletion) Omnimodal, something with all modes *not sunyata, used as opposite of fulfilled. I plan to never use the word "empty" for sunyata I think.

One of the biggest Insights so far is that ontomodality poses that there exist independent modes of being and that beings with different ontomodal profiles can disalign each other, leading to conflict. It can really precisely explain "incompatibility" between two people but also between any entities or structures that should interact with each other. It also helps analyze when a conflict is existential in nature or just a matter of misunderstanding. For example, if you have a fight with your spouse, ontomodality helps you to know if it is physically possible for you two to work on resolve or if it is hopeless.

I wanted to make a thread, dedicated to sharing and discussing stories from real life together with their respective analyses, utilizing the lens of neurodivergence. It is also possible to talk about peculiar situations (for example where you felt alienated for some reason) from your lives to then discuss the impact of possible neurodivergence or neurotypicalness of different actors in the respective stories.

Sorry I didn't mention this: The notion of irreversible genetic essence is very limited of course. I had a thought about epigenetics while building the model myself, but it isn't in my priority to worry about such details yet. I'm more interested about developing the bigger picture to be able to see as early as possible how it might break. I'm very thankful for your contributions. However it might take me some time to integrate this into my model since I'm more of a generalist (holoconic) and not as much of a specialist (hyloexonic)

First, thanks a lot for the input! The theory of ontomodality seems to be extremely epistemologically robust. It even transcends the statement above. "the map" exists in a hyloexo-semiosynconic mode, while "the territory" is either a hyloexonic, phenoendonic, or hybrid mode of existence depending on context (on this forum it is likely used as hybrid or pheno'). This means that hyloexo-semiosynconic beings are modally aligned with the map, meaning to them "the map" is existence. On the contrast, to people who are hylo', pheno' or hylo'-pheno', "the terretory" is existence. In short, my model claims, that the territory has no ontological dominance over the map. If the language is hard to understand, read my post about ontomodality

@oOo I will post my unfished notes about ontomodal theory of the absolute (wip name) within the next hours so you and other people on this forum can properly engage with my thoughts. I will answer to your replies soon but I want to get this out first

Yeah, this is totally understandable. When I wrote that answer, I assumend that I would post an explaination of my model with many examples afterwards to make clarify on the language😅 But it turns out, building a robust theory, inventing terms and defining them takes a lot more time that I thought.

Nice to see you're still here!🙃 If what I say is so unsignificant, then why are you still reading and engaging with my posts?😂

Fantastic question! This is my take about that currently: The omnimodal noetic (OMN) model describes the genetic conditions for your personally preferred mode of being. So if your noetic profile consists of 0% of one of these, you cannot be nurtured into engaging with that mode of being. One can be nurtured into living a life that is not in alignment with their genetic noetic profile. Just like people here are being nurtured into doing pickup. This is especially the case for asemionoetic people (non conformists) like us, because nurture itself is a very semionoetic process. (Gotcha) (I can imagine that all mental disorders trace back to a misalignment with the respective noetic profile. But I know this is a big claim.) This means that you can't measure the noetic profile of a person by examining their behavior. (they are doing pickup? Surely they are semionoetic!). Each individual has to at least partly figure out its noetic profile by themselves, since only they know what mode of existence they value. But it is a lot easier when they know about OMN.

It is almost 6:00 am and I haven't slept yet. The model is kinda blowing up in my face. I couldn't stop. It seems to have massive implications to self-actualization, anthropology, ecology, biology, political philosophy, psychology, sociology, theology, mysticism, integral theory, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and especially ontology lol. So everything important basically. I need to get some rest and then you'll be greeted with a massive thread about Omnimodal noetic ontology (the name of the model for now, I know sounds epic) (for now) TSP (truth sensitive person) is renamed to Asemionoetic (spectrum/person/mode of existence) OSP (object sensitive person) is renamed to Hylonoetic (person/mode of existence) SSP (subject sensitive person) is renamed to Phenonoetic (person/mode of existence) non-TSP is renamed to Semionoetic (person/mode of existence)

Great observations! I want to add some nuance though. You are using TSP as OSP (object-sensitive) which would be more precise. The reason why OSPs cope through analysis is much deeper. The thing is, that OSP says nothing about intelligence. The defining feature about OSPs is not that they are competent, but that they are sensitive to and identify with the object. So low-IQ OSPs tend to be content playing with, collecting or organizing objects like toys for example. When OSPs analyze (an object like a topic), they are affirming their personal mode of existence. This is why nobody here truly stops analyzing in order to find their existence in meditation, because only SSPs can do that. If you are a hybrid, then a hybrid approach works best, which is what you are currently doing anyway.

Thank you so much for the encouragement! I'm working on my Objective-Subjective-Sensitive-person model right now, and honestly, I think I'm cooking. I am calling non-truth-sensitive people symbol-sensitive-people as of right now. I think it's an accurate name. In short, they don't care what it is or what it feels like, they only care about what it means (to other people)

Can you be more precise please? Do you mean seeking out other TSPs? My claim is, this is the only truly healthy way for TSPs to bond. Practicing pickup on thousands of people is the real cope to me. Edit: I'm thinking of changing the name again sorry. I really think I might be onto something here

About the insane Social-Symbolic-Alien Language non-Truth-Sensitive-People use Do you also hate making presents? Since forever, my family hates on me for sucking at making presents. And I beat myself up for it. They say I'm not empathic enough, too egoistic bla bla bla. My best explanation was, that I'm an only child and I've never properly learned it. Theory break: According to me, there exists a kind of neurodiversity I call "Truth-Sensitive-Person" (TSP). I believe, that TSPs exist on a spectrum between object-sensitive-person (OSP) and subject-sensitive-person (SSP) (this model is a work in progress. In previous posts, I used TLP). What all TSPs have in common is a love for absolute truth and a disdain for and a lack of understanding of social truths. More on that below. I have an alternative explanation now. My grandma told me that she is always super thrilled and happy when she receives little gifts like cake from her cleaning lady, and she is disappointed that me and my mom (also SSP) would not engage in little acts of affection like these too. What I've noticed is that this (happiness about gifts from others for their own sake) is not the case for me and my mom at all. Which means that even if we were lazy and egoistic (which we are not) we are at least not hypocrites. In fact, we are always annoyed by gifts from other people, when they are not useful to us. You might now say: "Of course you are. Why would you be happy to receive a gift that you have no use for?" If you believe this logic, you might be on the TSP spectrum. Because for a non-TSP, this logic does not apply at all. When they receive a gift from someone they love, they are super thrilled if that gift is well-meant. The crucial thing to understand, and it is hard to understand for TSPs, is that non-TSPs are not thrilled about the present itself. They get most of their pleasure from the gesture. The present is a symbol to them. This is because non-TSPs speak a completely batshit insane kind of social-symbolic-alien language they picked up and learned passively through conformity like their native language and are super confused about anyone who struggles to speak it, like TSPs, who only care about information (or spiritual truth if you are HSP) and struggle to pick up on these social symbols. Expecting a TSP to implicitly understand this social symbolic language is like starting to talk to some random person on the street in chinese and then being mad and confused, if they don't understand the fuck you're saying. And non-TSPs do that all the damn time! This leads TSPs to develop social anxiety, low self-esteem, etc. People who are TSPs naturally struggle with social situations, especially competitive ones because of this. They will genuinely start believing they have to learn tens of hours of pickup theory and do thousands of approaches to be successful without ever understanding, that they are not meant to engage in this alien language, the same way someone with an IQ of 80 is not meant to study thermodynamics. (If you think you might be TSP, you don't have to worry, just seek out other TSPs irl. They understand you perfectly and vice versa) I want to give another example from my life. I once dated a girl with heavy ADHD. This made her relatable to me, but she is not a TSP. One day, she was kind of in a bad mood, and she asked me: "Do you think I drink too much water?". I answered by dumping her with all the information I knew about the topic "how much water is too much water". After that, she was pissed and said: "What does any of this have to do with the question?". I was stumped. What did I do wrong? You have any ideas? I thought, that she wanted to know if she drinks too much water. Big mistake. See the mistake? If you don't or struggle to answer, then maybe you are a TSP too. It took me some time to figure it out, but I think I got it. She did not want to know if she drinks too much water. She wanted to know if I think that she drinks too much. She just wanted me to affirm that I accept her for drinking so much water. When you dig deep enough you will realize, what she actually asked was: "Do you approve of my existence?". This is at the fundamental reason for all social interactions between non-TSPs. This is why they need social interactions, because without them, they wouldn't know whether they exist. To TSPs, this logic makes zero sense. When we are faced with questions or insecurities regarding our existence, we would NEVER even THINK about going to a cleaning lady for affirmations (nothing against cleaning ladies). Because what the fuck would they know about existence???? What we do instead is we study philosophy if we are more on the autism side, meditate when we are more on the HSP side and do both if we are hybrids. In case this did not get clear enough: The reason why TSPs are here on this forum is because we are genetically unable to be satisfied with answers about our own existence from our cleaning ladies. Or positively reframed: We are not stupid enough to believe that receiving gifts from our cleaning lady is sufficient to affirming our existence.

The same thing without bashing communism

@Miguel1 Honestly, that sounds totally fair to me. I'm in the process of differentiating between unmasked, authentic behaviour and unnecessary "bad" behaviour. I have not had an online presence like this yet and still figuring things out. A lot of the things I've said, I wouldn't have said like this to someone in person. I'll maybe try to use this frame in the future. I will spend time kontemplating intrusion, respect, dignity. I will likely become more careful about my rethoric when adressing an individual on this forum. Thanks for your patience.

Thank you! A few days ago I watched a streamer who said to her chat: "You can be obnoxious if you're right and you can be wrong if you are humble. But you can't be wrong and obnoxious." I think that I get to be obnoxious because I believe I'm right. If you have a different opinion, I get that you find me annoying. Another reason is that I want people to attack my points, so I can go back to the drawing board and strengthen my points. But you're not doing that. You are just attacking my rethoric, not the content of what I'm saying.

This is the best explaination for his rethoric I've found so far. I feel like it is relevant for this forum. I know that my rethoric is intrusive. That's because exposing delusion is inherently intrusive. If you have a more complete explaination than me or you have specific arguments against my claims I'd like to hear them.

@OmniNaut Your mistake is that you have the same wrong assumptions as Leo. You are correct that you point out the hypocracy of someone who says "exposing falsehood is truth" and "love is truth". But you come to the wrong conclusion that the former one must be the wrong one. It's actually the latter. I'll not repeat a point I've already made so here we go:

Leo is heavily oppressed by societ because of his neurodivergency and he is coping by putting himself on a pedastal and everyone else down. If he would finally realize why and how he is being ostracised, he could be able make peace with it and develop a more balanced view of society

@Bernardo Carleial What is your point? Bc if it is "ML is not stage yellow" than you have given the reason why the opposite is true yourself.