Cred

Anything from Hermann Hesse

Unity amongst the people is what the rich fear the most. That's why they do everything in their power to keep people divided for example by endlessly pushing and funding useless culture wars debates like "feminism is the new moral authority" or "immigrants this immigrants that" or "trans athletes boo" (mind you the pseudo-left is also responsible for the polarization too to some extent by also pushing and engaging in these discussions). If you tax them they will just invest more into conservative propaganda to reverse the change. The most ironic thing is that the rich actually convince the public that this is a good thing. "This is a sign of free speech!" If you really think about it, the system is not really working if there are endless debates without any stability. What you need to understand is that this is exactly what the rich want, and this is a problem inherent to late stage capitalism and can't be fixed without a revolution. They want to distract from the one true culture war, which is the class struggle.

@Elliott If you don't take away the power from the rich, nothing is going to change. There might not be a trump anymore but the underlying issue will persist

I agree with a lot of things you talked about. Both sides. Elliott seems to know a fair amount about socialism/communism. You talked a lot about what socialism/communism is as a system and how it is different from capitalism. I don't really think in this way, since I think it is kinda speculative to talk about how some society might at some point be organized. In addition, I think it's not that important what the specific system of a country is. There are a lot of people saying that china is capitalist. The only thing that is really important in my opinion is that marxism is at least very strongly embedded into the culture of the country, through the constitution, for example. Developing ontomodality, I have found, that a lot of people (avolonics) don't actually know what to do when they don't have anyone to tell them. What this means is that a lot of people in power are happy to check the constitution when they are making a decision. The main problem with liberals therefore is not the development stage of the liberal, but the fact that the liberal culture and values is inherently exploitative. So few liberals are evil, actually. They just do what liberals do, and this leads to upholding capitalism and therefore produces suffering. This is why I'm not worried about capitalism in China. Even if a lot of people in the government are corrupt, most of them will still look into the constitution and as a result, aim to give more power to the people. This is why this is false. Once the revolution happens and the constitution is changed, capitalism will slowly suffocate in that country (very simplified and idealized of course). Even if the communist led state collapses, which only happens with enormous outside pressure, Marxism will still be part of the identity of the people. You can see this in Russia. There is still a ton of soviet nostalgia present in Russia which, in my opinion makes Russia way more susceptible for another revolution.

nvm. I editing to make a new reply

@oOo Thanks for the reply. I assume you don't have adhd (volonic)? Because if you do, I want to warn you about people you've mentioned like Marcus Aurelius and David Goggins. A lot of the things these people say are poisonous for volonics. I've said something like this before on this forum but telling a volonic person to be disciplined is like telling someone with no arms to swim. Note that I'm not against telling people with no arms to learn to swim. But one has to understand that this is a dangerous practice and that when you do, you should absolutely not compare your swimming abilities to normal swimmers. I want to use this opportunity to talk more about the volonic and avolonic modes of existence in the ontomodality model in a contemplative way. (Sorry it's a bit messy, that's simply because ontomodality is a new theory) Theory What is the volonic mode of existence? The volonic mode of existence is "existence as (autonomous) will". According to my model, "will" is a manifestation (mode) of existence. A volonic being is a being that is sensitive to the volonic mode of existence and insensitive to the avolonic mode of existence. A volonic being acting out (note that not all modes can be "acted out", since acting out itself is volonic) the volonic mode of existence (simply put, engage in autonomous will) will exist as resonance (fulfillment, love, existence, energy). A volonic being existing as the avolonic mode (simply put, outwardly imposed will) will exist as alienation (apathy, fear, non-existence, depletion) Example The best way to understand the volonic mode of existence is to imagine a perfectly volonic being as a thought experiment. This being would constantly have ideas and impulses that imply action. Engaging in these ideas is what gives this being existence (through resonance). Not being able to act these impulses or being expected to execute on other peoples ideas leads to alienation (non-existence, fear, etc.). This means to do things other people tell the volonic to do or do things that the volonic person thinks they need to do but don't actually want to do is like committing suicide since suicide is just a manifestation of the more fundamental alienation which is a manifestation of the even more fundamental non-existence. Another helpful way is to learn through distinction and comparing it with the same thought experiment regarding a perfectly avolonic being. An avolonic being experiences alienation when they don't get instructions and if they are asked to be creative. They are only at resonance, when they get told exactly what to do. If you hear someone say "without my job, my life would not have any substance (substance in this context is a manifestation of existence) and I wouldn't know what to do" you automatically know they are avolonic. At the other hand, If you hear someone say something like “I felt suffocated (suffocation is a really nice example for a manifestation of non-existence) doing my job and realized I need to be my own boss” you know they are volonic. You might realize that I’m struggling to describe my model in the English language. That’s because no word in any language seems ever not to be a manifestation of existence or non-existence and therefore emptiness. So as an example the sentence “when you don’t have adhd and you are asked to be creative, you get anxious” can be translated into ontomodality language like this: “1. an avolonic being 2. being asked to engage in 3. the volonic mode of existence 4. is alienation”, which is the same thing as “1. avolonic existence 2. avolonic existence 3. volonic existence 4. avolonic non-existence” which is the same thing as “existence existence existence non-existence” which is the same thing as “existence non-existence” which is at the end of the day the same thing as “sunyata” So this is not a bug but a feature. The model explains exactly how language and therefore human knowledge ultimately collapses into emptiness. This is why my theory is the ultimate theory of non-dual epistemology I believe. I am aware that I need to show this for other examples too, especially ones that are unrelated to neurodivergence. I want to add that I want to get a lot more precise with this in the future. It seems like a completely new avenue in linguistics, language philosophy and deconstruction. But there already exist way too many applications of the theory for a single individual to handle in a lifetime. I honestly would be thankful for some help on the long run. As I said, some of these insights are a bit sloppy which is because the theory is new, I am just one person and I’m having some of them as I go and therefore haven’t had time to flesh them out yet lol. I wanted to apply this to "discipline" but the non-dual epistemology insight was more important. Maybe I will talk about discipline when I have recharged, I just want to post this now.

If you just want to quickly know weather this theory is useless bullshit or not, I suggest you jump to "Structures and phenomenons through the ontomodal lens" below. Edit feb 4: Some insights about existence and emptiness in this post are outdated. Sunyata/ nirvana is Amodal/Transmodal can can not be archieved through any mode of existence. Any talk about unimodality being more enlightened or something is bullshit. Initially, i wanted to get my threory to a point where it is free of inconsistencies, holes etc. before posting. What i’ve now realized, is that getting to this point might take a very long time. The problem with this is, that witholding my thoughts about the theory just has the effect, that everyone on this forum who is ready to seriously consider it (@oOo @Joshe, etc.) is denied the possibility to already start to properly contemplate it. So this is why I’m posting all of my unfinished notes. Last night I think I’ve discovered three more modes: will/creativity-sensitive (Schopenhauer has entered the chat. This might be where passion orientation comes from), whole/ holism-sensitive (Leo, Ken Wilber, Schlegel? wip name: holoconic) and beauty/aestetics-sensitive. Edit feb 4th: Beauty is omnimodal I think. I called Will-existence Volonic and whole-existence Holonic (Random insight: self-harm behaviour is a symptom of modally disaligned beings who engage in the phenoendonic, will sensitive modes of existence in order to feel like they exist again. (through affirming (free) will and subjective experience). See how practical it is?) Edit: I think I found another one: Openness. Beings who are open love the unexpected and the suprise. They are the comedians. They don't care if what they think is objectively or socially or symbolically true, because for them only the absurd is true. (Rings some bells?). Their metaphysics is: Reality is a suprise. Reality is absurdity. Reality is contradiction. Reality is paradox. So it seems the strange loop, etc. is again just another mode of existence. (I'm not downplaying). This means, that "reality is logical and orderly" (hyloexonic) and "reality is paradox" are both valid lenses. Edit feb 4th: I called it Paraonic Naming and Integrating those into my notes would just cause me to stall sharing my thoughts again. This model seems to be an extension of spinozas metaphysics, which is encouraging since spinoza was based af. I'm struggeling to describe this model neutrally, because a lot of language has ontomodal biases. For example I realized that "a being engages in a mode of self" has a will-sensitive bias. "Embody" has a hyloexogenic bias. So its tough. But also exiting. Also the word "sensitive" has a phenoendonic bias lol. I think this explains the batshit insane language philosophers of ontology invent. I might have to do the same. UNFINISHED NOTES I invented ontomodal theory of the absolute, ontomodal mind theory, ontomodal throry of substance (OMM) on February 2nd. It is currently in its infancy and all of the terms are not fixed yet. OMM is a unifying theory that bridges the gaps between the natural sciences, humanties, theoretical philosophy, ontology and spirituality. (Before gta 6) It seems to be the crown jewel of all tools regarding self-actualization. It is the fundemental reason why self-actualization is so multidisciplinary and why supposedly niche subjects like ontology play such a big role in it. What is OMM? Since I want this to be a legit ontological theory, the beginning will be painfully abstract like every good ontological theory. However this model is extremely practical and really shines with examples and I have a ton prepared (they are further down). So just hang in there… OMM claims, that emptiness (sunyata), existence, non-existance (all three: emexnex) are arising from three modes of consciousness (edit feb 4: Sunyata arises from absence of any modes) - Hyloexonic, existence stems from object engagement (in simple terms: Object=Love) - Phenoendonic, existence stems from subject engagement (in simple terms: Subject=Love) - Semiosynconic, existence stems from symbolic engagement (in simple terms: Symbol=Love) This means, that for any entity, it’s state of emexnex can be explained with the three modes on consciousness. These modes are genetically encoded in every human with different prevalences. The rest of the terms - Ahyloexonic, non-existence stems from object engagement (in simple terms: Object=unhappy) - Aphenoendonic, non-existence stems from subject engagement (in simple terms: Subject=unhappy) - Asemiosynconic, non-existence stems from symbolic engagement (in simple terms: Symbol=unhappy) - unimodal, refers to “only one mode” - bimodal, refers to “only two modes” - Omnimodal, refers to “all three modes” - modally aligned being: being that is affirming of it’s ontomodal profile - modally disaligned being: being, that is not affirming of it’s ontomodal profile According to OMN, the fundamental purpose of self-actualization and also of the universe, is to increase modal alignment. There seems to be no other valid definition of the term "purpose". (This sentence is itself written from a semiosynconic perspective) ------- Strict Definitions (?) - Hyloexonic, mode of reality that is object affirming - Phenoendonic, mode of reality that is subject affirming - Semiosynconic, mode of reality that is symbol affirming quick and sloppy explaination of the names: hylo=matter, exo=external Pheno=phenomenon, sensation, endo=internal semio=symbol, syn=together, con=icon (semio and icon might be a bit redundant but it sounds better than semiosynic and it is convenient that all of them end with "onic" and have similar stress patterns (? tf I'm new to inventing words so I might be talking shit. Is kinda fun though)) Random insights - Dead matter is empty - existence is the base for love, non-exisence is the base for fear. Are you ready to torture your brain? An entity that engages in non-emptiness is a being. Out of the engagement in non-emptiness, engagement in existance and in non-existance arise The genetic code define the ontomodal profile of the being. A being that exists is a self and a being that is non-existent is a no-self. The more unimodally aligned the being, the more empty, existent and the less non-existent it is. The more unimodally disaligned the being, the more empty and non-existent it is, but the less existent it is. The more polymodally aligned the being, the more existent it is but the less empty and less non-existent it is. The more polymodally disaligned the being, the more non-existent it is and the less empty and existent it is. (edit feb 4th all of this after "are you ready..." is outdated) It seems like the words positive, good, etc trace back to ontomodal alignment and the words negative, bad etc trace back to ontomodal disalignment (?) ------- Structures and phenomenons through the ontomodal lens (old names, since “noetics” carries a phenoendonic bias. The new names are above under “strict definitions”. Btw, realize that this theory is the ultimate anti-bias tool?) The ontomodal theory of the absolute is a powerhouse for explaining different facets of all sorts of structures. An overview: Hylonoetics tend to care about something is * Phenonoetics tend to care about what something feels like Semionoetics tend to care about what something means Below are a couple of examples. *objectively not ontologically. In future when I'm talking about ontomodality, I will try to use "is" as the ontological is and "is objectively" as the hyloexonic is. This leads to an interestinf insight: Every being of each mode has different interpretations of the word "is", which makes sense, because each have diffenent notions of being. God Hylonoetic: What is god? Theology: God is an object seperate from me that I can analyze and debate. There exist statements that are true about god and and statements that are false about god. There exists a proof of gods existence. I can philosophize about God. pheno-hylonoetic: What is god experience? Mysticism: God lies in experience. This experience is definable and archievable through systematic analyzing, practice and contemplation. phenonoetic: How does God feel like? Spirituality: God is inside of me but inpersonal. God is experience. I can find them in my subjective experience when I’m meditating. Semionoetic: What does God mean? Belief: God is telling me which social rules to submit to. God is defining what I am. I connect with people over my beliefs. I can never question my beliefs since my beliefs are my existence so questioning would equate to suicide. I’m okay with this. I gain enourmous pleasure from my beliefs and my confidence in them. I know that my beliefs are real since the people close to me have the same beliefs. This is how I define the word real. It is pysically impossible to me to consider any other definiton. hylo-semionoetic: How can the symbol god reach as many people as possible? Religious institutionalism:God is a container for social symbols/rules and I can systematically build or help organize social groups and institutions to promote them. pheno-semionoetic: What does my personal god make me feel? Bhakti Yoga: I have a deep personal relationship with god. They guide me like a loving parent. They make me feel fuzzy feelings in my body. God is love. Yes you red that right I just used OMN to reverse engineer most of religion lol Metaphysics Hylonoetic: What is reality (made of)? Materialism: Me and reality is object. Pheno-Hylonoetic: What is reality from the subjective standpoint? Idealism. I’m analyzing my mind through the subjective lens and conclude my mind is reality. Phenonoetic: How do I feel about reality? Phenomenology. I’m just looking at my raw experience and conclude experience is reality. Semionoetic: What does reality mean? Mythology. I’m listening to people around me and read stories that contain symbolism and conclude whatever they are talking about is reality. Socializing Hylonoetic: I like to exchange information with other people. I don’t see them as people, because the term “person” implies that an entity has some symbolic meaning and I can’t grasp that. I tend to analyze social structures as if they were objective and fail bc they are symbolic, not objective. Since we are both object and there is no existance outside of object, to me, we are one. Phenonoetic: When I’m in the presence of someone, it is impossible for me not to empathize with this person. I don’t see them as people but as feeling entities. There is no difference between what I feel and what they feel and because for me there is no existence outside of feeling, to me, we are one. When someone in my pesence is angry at me or doesn’t like me, It feels to me like dying. Semionoetic: “I love to socialize with other people” is an understatement. Without socializing, I don’t exist. I physically cannot grasp the possibility that I could exist independent of other symbolic beings, since there is no meaning independent of other meanings. When I socialize with other semionoetics, the main objective is always that we are both affirming that we exist symbolically (in the semiotic matrix). Since there is no existance outside of symbol, to me, we are one. Asemionoetic people confuse me and make me angry. When I’m talking to them they behave so asymbolic towards me that I don’t know who I am anymore. It is as if they don’t see me as a person and it’s sickening. I don’t get affirmed in my symbolic identity at all. Therefore spending time with them is like slowly commiting suicide. I avoid them like the plague. When someone in my close scoial circle is asemiotic, I suffer greatly. Career Family Love giftedness Low intelligence Political identity (PI) Example woman Hylonoetic: What IS this PI? Biology: What is a woman biolocially? Phenonoetic: What does PI feel like? Wokeness: How do woman feel in this society, how are they treated? Semionoetic: What does it mean to be PI? Tradition: How is a woman supposed to behave? Hygiene (lol) Hylonoetic: I don’t care to shower, I just want to think. For me, redicule and the sense of smell of me and of others is not part of existence. Therefore it does not make sense to me to do hygiene. Phenonoetic: Hygiene is important to me bc I like to smell good and feel good. Semionoetic: Hygiene is important to me bc I learned it from my parents through symbolic comunication. Spiral dynamics Hylonoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage orange and stage yellow. Phenonoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage green and stage turquoise. Seminoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage purple and stage blue. I definetly need a diagram at some point. Is someone here good with diagrams?😅 Personality disorders (experimental) objective-subjective-SP spectrum: I can’t develop borderline since my existance does not rely on my relationship with other people. Object-SP: When traumatized and with the right disposition, I delude myself and develop narcissism. Since my existence is based in objective truth, my delusions are far more extreme than for SBSPs since I have to affirm and rationalize them way more. If I’m gifted on top of that, I can be responsible to the biggest most intricate delusional systems, institutions, organizations, social groups, families that are completely unbelievable that they’re real. Object-SP/Subject-SP: Exact same as Object-SPs but I tend to build cults. SJSP: I can not develop Narcisissm.... ------- Examples Examples of people (estimates) * Leo Gura: Strong hylonoetic, moderate phenonoetic. Very low Semionoetic. * Carl Jung: Textbook Omninoetic. * Jordan Peterson: Strong hylo-semionoetic, very low phenonoetic. * Oppressive CEO types (Jeff bezos, Trump, Elon musk, etc): Strong semio-hylonoetics. Very low phenonoetics. * Mr Beast: Very strong hylonoetic, moderate semionoetic, low phenonoetic. Careers Fields of study Random insights (extra messy) - Everything that is not hylo-semionoetic is intuition. - reason and logic are hylo-semionoetic. - Zionism is extremely semionoetic - Love: The word Love has a strong pheno-semiotic bias. However fundamentally, Love is the state of non seperatedness and pure existance. Therefore everything that is unoetic is love and everything that is binoetic or omninoetic is not. That also means that Love has "three flavours". This is why people who are dominant in different modes have fundamentally differen lovelanguages and in most cases, cannot possibly fall in love. - Human. The more you mix the different modes of existance, the less pure your existance becomes and with that, the more human you are. Here comes a banger get ready: - (Duality of) being (non-existence vs existence) is perpetuated by the conflics among the three unoetics and between the emptyness (sunyata) arising from unoetics and Duality of being - Stangeloop detected! Existence is the duality of being and non being and being is the duality of existence and non existence - noetic bliss (perfectlily modally aligned) - Everything that exists arises out of the contradictions between the three modes of existence and existence itself. The closer you move towards unoetics, the closer you move towards non-existence and the further you move from unoetics the further you go towards existence. - For semionoetic people, the things that very asemionoetic people do often seem meaningless. That's because for very asemionoetic people, meaning and purpose are not graspable modes of existence. This is why the special interests of hylonoetic people can seem so niche and meaningless at times. But they don't care. They are physically unable to worry about leading a meaningless life. - The model does not assume a qualitative difference between - life and death - Human, non-human lifforms and matter - Existance is defined with noetic alignment which is completely seperate from the term "life" and non-existence is defined through noetic disalignment and is completely seperate from the term "death". The claim is there can be no definition of (non)existence outside of the noetic modes. - The term "noetic disalignment" can be quated with the term "human". Notice that with that definition, zooanimals are more human than tribespeople - for a pure hyloexonic person, mind and tribe does not exist, only matter. For a pure phenoendonic person, only mind exist and matter, tribe do not. For a purely semiosynconic person, … - Jordan Peterson is not afraid of stage green bc he is stupid. He is afraid bc he is not phenoendonic enough ——— Different archetypes explained through the Omnimodal neotics Model (keep in mind a lot of this is experimental since the model is in its infancy) * Non-Existence: If you are neither hylo- nor pheno- nor semioneotic, than you literally have never and will never exist. There is no existence outside of these three axes. They describe all possible modes of existance. "Existance" can only ever be defined in relation to them. * Matter: If you are maxxed out hyloneotic and nothing else than you are literal dead matter (that was never alife like a). * Dead person: (read this in a vibrato voice) The moment you die, you become 100% semio-hyloneotic. You only exist as a symbolic entity (soul) floating as a part of the world soul and as rotting matter. Your existence can partly be recovered, for example when a very speciallized tracker inspects your corpse, a shaman is reaching you by accessing the realm of the dead in the world soul or a tribalist could recover some of your semioneotic activity while you were alive through reenachment and conserve it, so you continue to live as a semioneotic fragment of culture, etc. (It was kinda spooky writing this but it lowkey makes total sense) * Enlightened Being: Enlightenment is pure existence. Each of the noetic modes interfere with the other which means that only an unoetic being (just one noetic mode) can reach permanent full enlightenment. (This is why you automatically drop out of enlightenment as soon as you use language bc it is hylo-semioneotic and therefore not pure). The three kinds of enlightenment are per definition at the same time one and the same (existance=existance) and also the most uncomparable modes of existance possible (hyloneotic existance≠phenonoetic existance≠semionoetic existance). If one is multipolar, the best way for an individual to archieve enlightenment is by suppressing the weakest two modes. However this can only be temporary since every one of your noetic modes comes loaded with the need to engange in that mode of existance. * Animal: The animal kingdom has similar architypes and even similar prevalences of each modes as the human population but with less intelligence. This means there is no qualitative difference between a human and an animal. * Shaman: People who are extremely Pheno- and Semionoetic are the ones who are constantly dreaming of imagery and symbols. Even during daytime. They are the kinds of shamans who dream of prophecies and access the ralm of the dead. They are extremely in tune with their unconscious since it communicates through subtle phenomena and symbolism. (This explains my extreme lack of success in lucid dreaming, dream journaling, symbolic painting, etc. since I'm very Asemionoetic) * Cave Yogi: If you are extremely phenonoetic, then you are painfully conscious of god ALL THE TIME with no effort. You are unable to live a normal life. All you want is to go into a cave alone and admire god until you die a mahasamadhi. (You are the penguin heading towads the mountains) * Tribalist: If you are extremely semionoetic, you are completely one with your tribe. For you there is no you outside your tribe. This means you are enlightend but in a peculiar and interdependent way. For you there is no existance outside of loyalty, which means betraying or being abandoned by your tribe would be the exact same thing (worse actually) as dying for you and you can do literally nothing about that fact. You are also extremely sensitive and knowledgable of the precise identity and tradition of your tribe. You are tasked with conserving it's identity through enacting traditions and there is no one who could do it better than you. (I kinda feel a lot more hopeful and positive about conservatives after writing this) * Mystic: A Mystic is someone who is phenonoemic enough to grasp the significance of god, and they're desperately clenching for god counsciousness but their love for hylo-semionoetic intellectualizing is always in the way to fully reach it. Their versatility is their downfall. Their highest life purpose is it to lead true unoetics the way to a treasure which they cannot posess. * (Aboriginal) Tracker: Language itself is semionoetic with elements of hyloneotics. Learning Language both requires understanding social symbols and hyloneotic pattern recognition. This explains why extremely autistic people (very asemioneotic) struggle with language even if they have great pattern recognition. So if they can't use language, what would an extremely asemio-, hyloneotic person be good at? I think if they are unintelligent they would feel most comfortable building simple repetitive things for example. Things like arrows. If they are intelligent, their pattern recognition would be off the charts and they would be able to read a lot of information from land about the weather, fertility, game etc. I think they would excel at geoguessr for example. So if they can't think, then what is in their head? I think they literally walk around with a perfectly empty cup all the time but they are so Aphenonoetic that they still can't sense god even though they have the perfect conditions otherwise. However this still means they're enlightened but just more in the way a rock is enlightened than a guru. * Capitalist: If you are extremely hylo-semiotic, than you thrive by creating and organizing social structures like institutions etc. A company with it’s logo and organization of workforce is a text-book example for an extremely hylo-semiotic structure. Notice that it is possible to build a company with zero phononoetic elements. If you are zero phenonoetic you are completely unaware of how you feel. When this is the case, you are dependent of a phenonoetic person in your life to monitor and nurture you. A company with zero phenonoetic elements almost certainly has horrendous working conditions.

Mamdani is not a communist. He is not even a leftist. He is a liberal. Since elections can easily be bought in liberal societies, every positive change Mamdani makes will eventually be reversed by rich conservatives. The only lasting positive change Mamdani can make with his actions, is to make people aware that the system is working against them.

@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.