Cred

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

@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?😂