Cred

Yes! What I'm describing is the anatomy of the spirit.

@Anton Rogachevski First, it is important to note that I have absolutely no idea what modal logic is😅 At the beginning, it was not my goal to end on some super abstract metaphysical theory at all. I just studied the lived experience of neurodivergent people. You can track my posting history. At the beginning I only posted about things that are directly relevant to everyday living. So we don't disagree at all here. Before I did all of this my take on metaphysics went literally like "I don't get the point of metaphysics. Isn't this just elaborate speculation?" What happened though, is that I found that I can not understand neurodivergency deeply enough without continuing to abstract. This is how I arrived here. Neurodiversity seems to point to the strucure of spirit itself, which is why it is necessary to move to this level of abstraction. Edit: All of these modes of existence can be observed in everyday living and are incredebly relevant, not just for theorizing, but also for self-actualization

1. If you think about it, facts=existence is not that radical. What would be the alternative?

6. I also found the wholeness argument the hardest to grasp. It might be wrong of course. My argument is that in order for things to interact, there has to be the possibility of "thing" first and this can non exist without wholeness. Think of non-wholeness as "radically diffuse" If wholeness is a mode of existence, this means that emergence is just as real as reduction

@Anton Rogachevski Thanks for attacking my theory! It is a sketch and unfinished. 2. You got that right, (1) and (2) are assumed. Based on my understanding of the big bang theory, these are not controversial or a big leap to claim at all. 3. My current best explaination for why it fragmented is that the absolute contains all possible principles and that existence happend because a subset of these happended to interact at the same time. 4. First, change is Sequenciality+Difference. (I might change Temporality back to Sequenciality. The reason why I chose temporality at first is because "Zeitlichkeit" is like a cool Heidegger word) You are correct that "when" there was only the absolute, there was no "when". Time did not exist. I don't quite get your objection I need time to think about the other ones

Belief and fact are equal in ontomodal epistemics. Belief is existence that manifests from Simultaneity (synchronicity). Those who believe synchronize themselves to each other and connect to that aspect of spirit in that way. Fact is existence that manifests from Difference (information). The act of declaring a fact is the differentiation from it's counter-fact. This means that a fact is not true, but existence.

@VeganAwake To those who don't study belief, beliefs are invisible. For the average American patriot, "America is the best country" is not a belief, it is a fact. Without studying beliefs, you can't tell belief from fact.

I only trust reason since yesterday. I want to give you a thought experiment: What is the creation was a thought that is thinkable? What if the creation is a paradigm that is possible to comprehend with reason, but just nobody did yet? This would explain the struggle of the critical reasonable people to oscillate between clinging to a paradigm and then realizing that it does not account for the whole picture and then discarding it just to cling to the next one. I want you to read my proof (sketch) of reality=matter=spirit=idea. I believe this fragmentism has the potential to be that last paradigm. I'm realizing it is arrogant to say.

I disagree, actually. If you choose to ditch a paradigm, you do it out of reason. If you choose to go into the state of not knowing, you still do it out of reason even if the state of not knowing is itself not part of "reason"

I think what you guys are searching is not hyper-sanity but pure reason

@Human Mint Why excellence is the enemy of flow The Problem that I have with virtue is that it includes "ideal", "moral", "manly", "excellence". Excellence and flow are not supposed to be goals or an ideal. They are meant to be a byproduct of authenticity. If you value excellence, then you automatically fear mediocrity. So If you value excellence, you become less effective. Why? Because if you do, and you engage in something, you don't engage in the thing but rather in the question "am I being excellent or mediocre?" which is actually a distraction from the object and therefore ineffective and the opposite of flow. Edit: I hope I was able to make clear that my claim is a lot more radiacal then just "perfectionism is evil". No I'm saying ANY notion of good that is not authenticity is evil. This also includes "responsibility" for example.

Don't know if someone said this already but clenching the anus can release sexual energy in the muladhara chakra when you feel safe, (otherwise) relaxed, tranquil and focussed. You don't actually have to clench it, but an initial stimulus is helpful. Something that vibrates like a vibrator work better (lol). More tranquility and more focus strengthens the feeling. You can have a touch free orgasm like this, actually. The point in tantra yoga is now to pull this energy up through the spine through each chakra. This is what "the Kundalini is ascending" means in my understanding. You can think of the sexual energy as raw oil and the chakras as refinery plants that alchemize (I used this word intentionally) the "dirty" sexual energy into more pure forms of Energy. This way you can have a full body orgasm and ecstatic enlightenment, but it takes a lot of sexual energy, and you only have a limited amount each day. Also it is exhausting in a weird way and imo just because the experience is more intense, does not mean, that it is a more valid enlightenment or that it leads to more insight.

I would define insanity like this: "Person is insane" is true if and only if they are far away from the norm and have resulting identity problems with it. Sane is not somebody who is logical or something, but simply someone who is not insane. That's it. "not being able to differentiate", "not being able to apply logic", "not being able to pick up on social cues", "only living in anticipation", "not being able to be disciplined" make you drift away from the norm, but they don't make you insane. If you develop so much insecurity around it that your Self collapses in on itself, then and only then you have insanity. This means that Hyper sanity does not mean that someone is a super genius scientist, rather it would be someone who has 100% self-acceptance regardless of "ability".

@Hojo This is really cool I did not know this thanks a lot for sharing. This seems notion perfectly supports my theory. (I'm aware of the danger of looking for confirmation instead of criticism) According to ontomodality, any existing entity is well-defined with the respective amounts of each of the modes of being. If an entity has 0 of everything it is pure emptiness. Btw. I think I have found an 8th one which is "Anticipation" (I think I will always try to spell them capital to show they are metaphysical principles)

Yes it is extremely practical

This post contains a small list of the problems I think it can solve:

yeah my plan is to flesh it out here and then we spam Kit Fine and get him to do zoomcalls with me

@Carl-Richard almost done

I just got some sleep and my paranoia is better. Okay so this theory which I call "the Fragment" (wip name) is a mathematical proof that gives all the conditions that had to interact at the same time for the possibility of the existence of something. I don't know if it is correct but it sure as hell is beautiful. I think I will post a sketch of the proof later. For a proper proof, mathematics might have to be invented first. I'll contemplate more about it and try to tear it down

Yeah so coming up with this is just the beginning. In think it has applications in every field of knowledge. So what happened basically is that I found a metaphysical theory that explains the big bang and combines all existing respected metaphysical theories in a very elegant way.

Sorry this is kinda written in a brutally honest, venting kind of way, like I don't know how to feel atm. Okay so spoiler alert: I think I found it actually but I'm not sure what to do. Like I'm not even remotely qualified to write about it in such a way that academia would accept it right now. I would need to be phd level in Metaphysics, Physics and Maths. I'm like at page twenty of the critique of pure reason and like page 6 at Being and Time lol. The insights or call them revelations are just too distracting. I'm totally ready to dedicate my life to it for sure but I kinda have the paranoia that someone steals it or has the same idea and publishes first. But I guess I just have to do inner work and let go. In some way it would be relieving I'm kinda more fine about the scenario that it is complete bullshit and I'm having a psychosis (my mom has schizophrenia). At the end, it is fun to work on a system like this like it was fun for me to play with wooden blocks as a child. I think this might be the healthiest view. Just wooden blocks arranged to a tower that look nice to me. The problem is that it can be seen as such a big responsibility to come up with something like this and negating that would be self-gaslighting. I guess I kinda need to find the not knowing where I'm open for any possibility

I totally agree that it is bad advice to look for it. But this was not the question. What if you drank a coffee, and you suddenly had the revelation?

This is my journal about the journey of pursuing my life purpose which I seemed to have found almost a month ago. This journey began with a single insight that turned out to be a well that just goes deeper and deeper with no end in sight. I had this insight while formulating the following post: Thanks to this forum, I can narrow it down to this exact part in the post: Simply put, the insight is the observation that people seem to engage in social interactions to affirm their preferred mode of existence, which for some is the symbol, while for others, it's the object for example. This distinction of different modes of existence led me to develop the prototype of the metaphysical concept "ontomodality". Since I came up with this concept, I spent a lot of time contemplating about it, and it led me to have numerous massive insights about the biggest questions of the universe. When I posted "Thoughts on the Theory of Ontomodality" on the February third, I claimed, that it is the unifying theory of all fields of human knowledge and is the "crown jewel of self-actualization". Since then, my belief in the model has only strengthened. It truly might mark the end of all fragmented thinking. I believe that ontomodality has an insane amount of explanatory power and that it can help answer all of the following questions (I already had a ton of insights about all of these) and much much more: God What is god? What is being? What is existence? What is non-existence? What is the difference between existence, life, being, the self and the "I"? What is emptiness sunyata? What is purpose? What is meaning? The human What is the human? What is life, how did it arise and why? What is death? What is survival? How does one overcome death? What is consciousness, how did it arise and why? Why does consciousness seek unity? If unity is good then why is the collective consciousness fragmented in the first place? What is love? What is symbiosis? What is the relationship between the two? Duality What is seperation and duality, how did it arise, and why does it exist? Is there a fundamental "first" duality/separation? What are all the dualities? Does it make sense to track, how the dualities of existence came from this one first duality? What would this genealogy of dualities look like? What is non-duality? What is liberation? What is harmony? What is infinity? What is transcendence? How are these different from each other? What is morality? Does it exist? Does evil exist? Does the "good" exist? Is god good? Why does conflict exist? Why is love and unity so hard to attain? Culture What is religion? How did it arise and why? Is it any good? What is mythology, how did it arise and why? Is it any good? What are non-monotheistic gods? Where do they come from? Are there evil gods and good gods and if yes, which are which? Is mysticism really better than religion and mythology? What is a prophecy? What is a prophet? When does one arise, and can it happen again and if so, how? What is the prophecy? What is the future going to look like? Is it possible to bring order into the world and if so, who will do it? Is there an "end" to history? What is language? What would the ideal language look like? This must do for my first post of this journal, I need to give my brain some rest. I did not even scratch the surface.