Cred

23 23.1 1 Nirvana = !3 ? 2 Interesting concepts: Oedipus, Anti-Oedipus 3 does free will exist in my model? No. 3.1 wait yes it's point. Wait this means people with ADHD have less free will? Well in some way they don't since they can only pursue their passions. 3.1.1 But point people also don't have free will since they can't deviate from their ideology. 3.2 Interesting observation: From the perspective of a person with one mode of existence, a person with a different mode of existence seems to have less free will, while it seems to oneself that one has chosen ones mode of existence, but this is not the case. 3.2.1 example from real life: I tell my grandma: "you were born to always commit to some values" and then my grandma said: "no I just don't want to let go of my values". it seems like they feel like that's what they want and they have a choice when really there is no choice. 4=3.2.1.1 Choice 4.1 Choice=33 has an interesting status in my theory. In this tracing, choice is a paradox. 4.1.1 My theory states that there are people who are great at making choices since they need to make choices to exist. But if one needs to make a choice, they don't have the choice not to choose. So non-point-sleves have impaired ability to choose and point-selves have impaired ability not to choose. So no matter what, there is always at least some kind of impairment of free will. 5 Desire 5.1 right now I have this weird mechanic where more resonance, so higher amplitude leads to a more narrow space and therefore unity=22, while dissonance, which needs to destructive interference, expands, the space. The thing is I don't really see a connection in physics. One could argue that higher frequency leads to a smaller space but this is also a stretch. 5.1.1 Wait I have an idea. Since resonance is "substance", it makes sense that more substance leads to a more stable space. And non-substance leads to diffusion and therefore an expansion of the space. Yeah this kind of makes perfect sense actually. 5.1.1.1 so I have an interesting idea. It kind of makes sense now in my head, but I think it's very complicated. So the wavelength does correspond to the "size" of the space. So resonance is substance, but if you only have resonance in the higher frequency range and not in the lower ones, then you have substantive space, but it is narrow (construction). if you only have the lower frequencies, then there is a hole in the middle of your space (hollow). 5.1.1.1.1 I have another idea. High frequency resonance is created, when the distance between the self and the self image is decreased. Low frequency resonance is created when the distance between the self and the self-image is widened. 5.1.1.1.1.1 So the phrase "I feel like myself" is a manifestation of high-frequency resonance. So it's 21-11=unity-resonance. Damn kinda makes a ton of sense. 6 What is stagnation? I think it includes !31. It's the opposite of the beauty in the phrase "The world goes its course" = 31-11 = repetition-resonance = "being in awe of the progression" 7 art is "a reflection point of embodiment" = 32-33-03-21-22 7.1 wait I have something better. Scrap the embodiment. It's art = point-reflection-non-point = 33-32-!33 = "A fixed (33) reflection (32) that negates fixation (!33)" 8 wait I realized that insted of for example !33 I could do 100-33=67. This is brilliant on many levels. 8.1 1. An asymmetry in the system is that since the tens digit never goes beyond 4. If I use the complements in such a way there is more symmetry 8.2 It makes the notation more pretty. Without the !, there is a consistent structure of xx-xx-xx-xx... 8.3 The question now is of course if this creates a clash in notation. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't. 8.3.1 It seems that since 33 is the highest number, 34-66 are unused so I could literally use them for anything. 8.4 One problem is that it is slightly more complicated since it now involves doing maths. 8.5 Wait there is a problem. 02=vaccilation is different from 2=field. 23.2 1 diffuse ≈ 67 is unbelievably interesting. 1.1 Rizhome ≈ 31•33-67 ≈ structured diffusion 1.2 I like the idea of just only using "≈" to symbolize that the statements are intuitive. Also to trigger analytical philosophers. Also it kinda looks cool. 1.2.1 Yeah this is great. It important to signify that it is NOT a kind of strict logic. 1.1.1 btw I'm using • to connect two traces just to cluster them to make the connection to the natural language strings more obvious. 1.1.2 I think the 67 is fire but 31•33-!31 kinda is more obviously paradoxical. I guess I just use ! when I want to highlight the paradox. 1.2.1 this is really brilliant since with "≈" I'm affirming the rizhome and weakening the designation. This is maybe what I want the tracing to be, exactly that balance between the rizhome and the designation. 2 what is melancholy? It's a subtle kind of longing so it's dissonance from seperation. 2.1 Melancholy ≈ 79-89 ≈ separation-dissonance 2.2 one can also add some nuance. Melancholy is seperation-dissonance from diffuse-reflection of unity-resonance ≈ 79-89 67–32 21–11 2.2.1 Damn I like this formalization. It would be more clean if I made the "from", "of" etc italic or something. 2.2.2 This is neither a definition, nor a designation. It is a balance of the concrete and the diffuse. It is a suggestion. I call it "trace" (pausen) 2.2.2.1 What is the difference between definition and designation 2.2.3 it seems that "-" symbolizes prepositions. Sometimes. 2.3 This is very interesting. I feel like 79-89 is also valid. It seems that with the trace, the can be more and more nuance added. Like the prepositions can also be traced for example. 2.4 I feel like it makes sense if I order it in such a way that the trace that is ontologically most relevant which is 79-89 is at the beginning and the rest is meant as nuance. 2.5 Honestly I like the idea that the entire language is in its essence only xx x xx xx xx... without any punctuation but one is free to use any punctuation they want. 3 Investigate the meaning of the word blueprint (Blaupause). Is that a good name for what this is? A blueprint is a tracing (?). 4 = 2.2.3.1 List of prepositions gpt: about, above, across, after, against, along, among, around, as, at, before, behind, below, beneath, beside, between, beyond, but, by, concerning, considering, despite, down, during, except, following, for, from, in, inside, into, like, near, of, off, on, onto, opposite, out, outside, over, past, per, regarding, round, since, than, through, throughout, till, to, toward(s), under, underneath, unlike, until, up, upon, via, with, within, without 4.1 I feel like these can also be traced. 5 trace-ontology. Pausenontologie 6 Schizophrenia is abandonment-feeling from paranoia stemming from hidden devouring is seperation-dissonance from symbolic-reflection stemming from diffused-unity-alienation ≈ 79-89 33-32 67-21-80 = 79893332672180 7 The tracing really seems to be some wild combination of maths, analytical philosophy and continental philosophy. 8 to uphold the format, I could say 2 for example is 20. Damn that immediately makes my language so much more compact potentially bc now I don't need any structure to signal what the 2-packets are. This is a crazy kind of numerology since now, 79,893,332,672,180 is some large number that exists that I have mapped to this abstract term schizophrenia which is wild. I have unlocked just another level of autism. 8.1 what this means is that this is literally some kind of non-linear type of encryption. Maybe I should keep it a secret and sell it to some military lol😂 8.2 It seems that I'm describing a function T:IL->IN with IN being the natural numbers and IL being natural language. 8.2.1 Damn this makes for a super fun game: I give you a number and you try to figure out the word. 9 is there a kind of coherence that is free of dialectical contradictions but allows for logical contradictions and inconsistency and regular incoherence? Dialectical cohernece? 23.3 1 Tracing 00 = Absolute 01 = Idea 02 = Field 03 = Ungraspable 04 = Graspable 05 = Matter 06 = Body 07 = Mind 08 = Consciousness 10 = Path 11 = Life 12 = Health 13 = Resonance 14 = Harmony 15 = Beauty 16 = Potence 20 = Space 21 = Unity 22 = Duality 30 = Complexity 31 = Repetition 32 = Reflection 33 = Point 34 = Sequence 35 = Cycle 36 = Symbol 37 = Intelligence 1.1 These are 24 + 24 (complements) + 1 (self-similarity has no complement) 1.1.1 So 49/100 are used, the rest are unused. So I can expand a lot. But I like how simple it is rn. 1.2 The important ones are just: 00, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33. So just 12 + 12 (complements) + 1 = 25. This is just one less than the number of letters in the english alphabet. I could also call the tracing "the alphabet" kinda epic. 1.3 I could find phonetics of each number now. What would be the properties of that language? What do I call it? 1.3.1 The phonetics would have to be choosen in such a way, that it's possible to reverse them for the complements. 23.3 1 What is POWER? 1.1 It seems there is a higher non-dual form of power and a lower form. Lets call the higher one Power and the lower one power for now. 1.1.1 Idea: power is traditional masculinity is influence on matter reality is accessed with procedurality is sequenciality ≈ 34 1.1.2 Idea: Potence is more broad (and therefore more powerful) than power. potence is influence on reality 1.1.1.1 Yeah I think power is def. more broad than just 34. 1.2 Potence is beauty? NO POTENCE IS HIGHER THAN BEAUTY (potence=16?) 1.2.1 Potence is making the ungraspable graspable. It is the power of god. It is the power to influence history. 2 Coherence, integrity, consistency, complementarity, harmony, resonance, beauty, potence 2.1 Consistency is sequenciality-resonance ≈ 3413 2.2 Complementarity is distance-resonance is low-frequency-resonance ≈ 2213 2.3 Coherentce is a system with no dialectical contradictions (?) 3 If this was a lamguage, it would enable the speakers to come up with their own words. There would be a huge spectrum of different words for one broad concept. It would allow for an insane amount of precision in speech. 4 Subtle Energy is reflection of embodiment ≈ 32 5 Alternative version with the path being the last concept: 00 = Absolute 10 = Granularity 11 = Idea 12 = Field 13 = Ungraspable 14 = Graspable 15 = Matter 16 = Body 17 = Mind 18 = Consciousness 20 = Space 21 = Unity 22 = Duality 30 = Complexity 31 = Repetition 32 = Reflection 33 = Point 34 = Sequence 35 = Cycle 36 = Symbol 37 = Intelligence 40 = Path 41 = Complement 42 = Symbiosis 43 = Life 44 = Health 45 = Resonance 46 = Harmony 47 = Beauty 48 = Potence 49 = Kleos 50 = Sunyata 5.1 This one is pretty cool actually it solves a couple of problems. 5.2 The only weakness is that 01-09 are not used. 5.1.1 The order is just way better. The path must be the last in the sequence. Now it's 01234 and a satisyfying order that makes sense. 5.1.2 one constriction is that I'm limited to 4 or maybe 4+4 stages in the path. I got rid of life and health so it's just four. Wait I've got an idea though. Okay I kinda solved it. This is not something I pulled out of my ass, I have this from a very early draft of my theory. (I'm talking about 41 and 42) 5.3 I added 50 = Emptiness which is cool. I love how The absolute and emptiness are the only traces whose complement is the same. 6 Oppression, abuse 7 I think self-similarity=non-granularity=90 8 How do I use the terms Eudaimonia and Euphony? They just fit too well into the tracing not to at least give them meaningful traces

Yikes. Hate to break it to you but America is a third world country.

@jacknine119 Google it. It's a term from Carl Jung.

22 22.1 1 It's easy the remember the system since: 0-Continuum, 1-Path, 2-Polarity, 3-Trinty. 0123. Good didactics. 1.1 This could make for very compact language. 1.1.1 I could inspire myself from Georg Cantor and find another cool symbol and do what he did with the aleph numbers. The question just is: What unifies 0123? 1.2 It seems they are laws. The 0th law, 1st law, 2nd law, 3rd law. Damn that's cold 1.3 The path is the path from survival to liberation btw. (?) 1.4 It seems like I need to learn about numerology 2 What does nicotine do? 3 (1.4.1) Numerology 3.1 It seems what I'm doing is already a kind of numerology. 3.2 0=self-similarity 3.2.1 01=Idea 3.2.2 02=Form 3.2.3 03=Body 3.2.4 04=Consciousness 3.2.5 05=Idea 3.2.6 00=emptiness? 3.3 1=path, 10=survival 3.4 11=resonance 3.4.1 11 is accessed through acceptence of death 3.4.1.1 being-towards-death (Heidegger) 3.5 12=harmony 3.5.1 12 enabled through acceptence of dissonance 3.6 13=symphony 3.6.1 13 enabled through radical acceptence 3.6.2 Damn that's the unlucky number for the highest principle😭 Alternative notation 4 Polarity: {•}. Damn that seems like an interesting notation for "space" 4.1 Contimuum: 🌀, O, 0 4.2 Polarity: <-> 4.3 Path: | 5 Metonymy cool word Lacan 6 (1.2.1) What is a law? It seems to be very closely related to 33 = point 7 Father seems to be a mix of guide (point=33) and repetition=31. Holy spirit seems to be a mix of reflection=32 and point=33. If the son is now a mix of 31 and 32 then it checks out. Rizhome (Deleuze) 8 It seems what I'm doing is I'm choosing some point on the rhizome and then trying to trace the entire rhizome in a satisfying hierarchical, numerical way. With this designation, I'm exerting power on and competing (competition is 33-10=point-survival ?) with different designations and the rizhome itself, but this is exactly the point and the goal. The concept of the rizhome is true but when one is lost in it, it leads to impotence in regards to fighting the status quo through offering an alternative. Fight power with power. This is a good slogan. This is Marxism-Leninism. 8.1 "Designation" is actually a pretty satisfying term to describe this. It seems that designation is in a sense more broad than the term ideology. 8.1.1 Or is it? No I think it might be the same. But I like designation since it is a less loaded term and it kind of relativises itself through its explicit connection to the rizhome. So designation is kind of an anti-ideology ideology which checks out perfectly. It's the fragment. It's the one piece. It's the will of D. 8.2 "Designation ontology" 8.3 This points to a new polarity which is: Rizhome-designation. 8.3.1 Where does it come from? It seems to have a lot to do with point = 33. I'm also smelling complexity and self-similarity=0. Complexity=trinity=3 I'm pretty sure. So Designation is {0, 3, 33}. Rizhome is non-point designation so just {0, 3}. Just self-similarity and complexity. This makes so much sense wtf. 8.3.1.1 This {•} is interesting notation I need to work on that. I could also do for example 0-3-33. I think the "-" is good because it symbolizes a link and I like the image of the link which is not existent in itself and only exists as the relation to other entities which is a pretty good descripiton of all of these designations. 8.3.1.2 It seems to make sense to call one of these numbers a "designation" since designation is what the model designates itself as. 9=1.1.1.1 Since the designation is such a central term in the self-description of the model I could use some fancy calligraphy version of D. It's the will of D! Bro HOW does this check out so well?!??!?!😭 9.1 I could use kind of an oldschool german calligraphy (fraktur). This is risky because it is a Nazi dogwhistle which is also good because it leads to polarization which is necessary for unity. It is also a good way to convey this point: "In the same way that communism in China is the best thing for Chinese culture, communism in the west is the best thing for Western culture" 9.2 What's also crazy is that "fraktur" has the same root as fragment=designation=0-3-33 and fractal≈0-33-31-32=self-similar-fixed-repeated-reflection. 10 Lol is seems like this journal itself is a kind of designation with a similar structure. There is def a clash in notation. Ideally I would make the desigs of the desig ontology bold but I'm transferring the text from the notes app which makes the bold disappear. Maybe I will eventually find a solution. 11 A structure that makes sense is to denote 1.D as "the first version of designation" or something like Cred.1.D "the first of Creds designations". And then for example, Cred.1.D.0-3=Rizhome. I like that "-" and "‎ = " are so similar, it makes the notation satisfyingly coherent. 11.1 Wait this is fun: Designation.0-3-33=Designation. Strange loop! Strange-loop is 0-31-32-33. 0=Self-similarity, 31-32 is repeated reflection which is loop. The strange loop is also a symbol which means it is fixed=point=33. This is interesting because 3-31-32-33 is intelligence. So what this would mean that a strange-loop is "the simplest form of intelligence" which is a very cool idea. I could also number the different "attempts" at denoting different terms within one designation but I have to see that the notation doesn't become too bloated too fast. I feel like git can offer a lot of inspiration for this. I could also just use "≈" when it's meant as a suggestion. 11.2 This is getting very obscure and jargony fast I love it👹 12 It is important to note that the desigs are not numbers but symbols. So what I'm doing is closer to creating some kind of analytical language to doing maths. I'm planning to invent alternative symbols that are more graspable than numbers that exist in parallel to the numbers for each D. 13 I need to find a better word for "a symbol inside a designation which is itself a designation but designation is redundant". Node? Node is great actually. 1.3.1 Nodes (symbol), Links ("-"), statements ("‎ = "). Sounds very logical and coherent so far. 13.1 The question is now: What precisely does "." stand for then? Extension? It makes sense that is also just means node. 13.2 I think it makes sense to denote a node in the abstract sense as: "•" or as "." also works. 14 Power accumulation for fighting power is distinct from power accumulation as a form of displacement. 22.2 1 Name for post about desig: Attempt at an analytical designation of ontology 2 I love the idea that the link symbol "-" is a metonymy for the brunnian link which itself is a metonymy for "a link that can't exist as a link without its neighboring links." or more abstractly: "that which can't exist as itself without those entities it is in relation with". Another version is: "that which exists is that which is as that which spans a space with others of its kind, which does not hold for sunyata" 2.1 This makes the link and the node equivalent which is sweet since I want the designation to be collapsible (into emptiness) like that. 2.2 I could also call a "node" a lonk this would be fun. 3 This kind of •=•-•-•=•-• notation is similar to molecular notation which is fun. Also it is convenient actually bc this means there are probably already tools to denote this kind of structure in Latex or something. 3.1 •=•-•-•=•-• is lonk is lonk link lonk link lonk is lonk link lonk. I feel like I have just unlocked a new level of autism at this point. 3.1.1 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnx6IKKkmXcrAHA1gl7ryF5Lm1QccLHm8rn8f59OMMqg&s=10 me 3.1.2 This is very Douglas Hofstadter. I need to keep reading GEB I'm like at page 60. Although I feel like I'm having more fun just reverse engineering the book without reading it completely. My brain kinda learns better by reverse engineering shit instead of reading a ton. 4 Humor is a small ideological shift, rage bait is a bigger one, offending is bigger yet and alienation is the biggest. The laugh tale is the destruction of the hegemonic ideology. 5 This journal seems to be designation Cred.0.D and its goal is to find the first designation which is Cred.1.D. 5.1 as an example: Cred.0.D.2026.March.22.5="Metonymy cool word Lacan" 6 Metonymy≈0-33. Or 32-33="reflection of a point"? Yeah the latter makes more sense. 6.1 So is that what the son is? It kinda makes sense. "the son symbol=point=33 is the reflection of the father symbol". Kinda checks out actually. 7 Space=2=polarity. Deleuze.difference=Cred.1.D.22=duality. 8 I feel like the designation supercharges thinking just because it is so hierarchical. 8.1 I need to learn more about Focault. 22.3 1 point-selves cling to capitalism because pursuing and achieving capital is their way of feeling valued. 1.1 Therefore, If one wants to abolish money, one has to establish an alternative system for personal-identity-valuation. 1.2 The participation of such system must be optional, so that non-point-selves don't suffer. 2 Relativity is non-point=!33(?) 3 I like the idea that this becomes a real speakable language. I feel like there are a couple mega autistic people who would be down learning this language. 3.1 I'm doing the ultimate project based learning. I'm not reading about linguistics. I'm inventing a language and then I analyze my own language. 4 Self-hatred is distinct from harted from injustice. 5 Maybe change point to "fixation". Repetition, Reflection, Fixation. This creates cofusion though since ADHD=non-fixation. 22.4 1 I like that it begins with the letter D but I must say that designation is not perfect. The literal meaning is just desig=33 not 3-33. 1.1 I think an interesting alternative is "tracing". 1.2 Designation is a very loaded nuanced term in analytical philosophy. I need to learn more about it. I'm tending to switch to tracing for now. 2=5.1 A good word for point in german is "setzung". 2.1 alt word for point is "laying" 2.2 Just definition is also good. But that's too mathematical. 2.3 I think I will just stay with point and setzung. 3 what the hell is schizoanalysis. Sounds super wonky. 3.1 chaosmosis, bifurcation, ontological heterogeneity 3.2 It seems there already exists a strong relationship between psychoanalysis and ontology in continental philosophy. 4 What is field in the tracing? 4.1 Field is the Origin so O? 4.1.1 Ø is the ungraspable? 4.1.1.1 that's cold honestly. 4.2 I have to remember my point about the ungraspable but I'm too lazy. Maybe I can fit the field and the ungraspable in the continuum. 5 If 21-!12 is the maw and 22-!12 is the abyss, what is void? void=!2-!12=non-space-non-love ? 5.1 (Or 2 with overline, or 2' or ~2 or non-2) 6 What is the difference between perversion and alienation? 6.1 More importantly what is alienation numerically? 6.2 I think it's roughly the same. Perversion is a form of alienation. 6 I can make the language more compact with regular expressions 6.1 Regex 6.2 System=31-32-33=3[1,2,3]. Honestly not much better lol. Wait or system=3*. 6.2.1 I'm not 100% sure about system 3* btw. I think resonance=3*. 6.2.1.1 Yeah I think system=3(2,3)-2(1,2)="a space where points are interacting". It does not imply change. 7 wait I have an interesting idea. I was talking about somatic languages. What's fun, Is the idea that language itself is a somatic language, since at the end of the day, it requires a performance of movement of the mouth and the tongue, etc. 7.1 So what this also means is that each movement can be interpreted like sign language, language of body movement could be interpreted for example. 7.2 so once I'm moving away from the numerical symbols into language territory, I can try to find those vocals whose "performance"resemblance the meaning of that which is vocalized. 7.3 what I could also do is create a language that is inherently, numerical, and mathematical. So I don't need multiple versions at the same time in a sense. 8 rename polarity=2 to space? Polarity is good since it can easily be associated with 2 but space is good since duality=22 and polarity=2 seems redundant. Yeah I'm tending to 2=space. 8.1 Wait what I could also do is 2=field and 21-22=space. This seems neat actually. Yeah that checks out. 9 Wave=3•1|2|3, Intelligence=3-wave. 22.5 1 What is embodiment? Wait body is just 03. 1.1 okay maybe it's 03-21-22=body-space 2 I could also make 0=self-similarity more detailed like: 2.1 00=absolute, 01=idea 2.2 02=ungraspable=emptiness=vaccilating. 2.3 03=graspable=form=wave= oscillating. 04=matter=pulsating 2.4 05=body=humming 2.6 06=mind=buzzing 2.7 07=consciousness 2.8 08=Idea. 3 Maybe differentiate between perversion=!2="destruction of space" and alienation=? Wait no alienation is also !2. I guess alienation is more on the !21=non-unity=abyss side and perversion is more on the !22=non-duality=maw side. 3.1 The question now is ofc what is just !2? 3.1.1 I think this makes sense: perversion=maw=!2-!22, alienation=!2, anihilation=void=!2-!21-!22, fragmentation=abyss=!2-!21. 4 soul=05-2=body-field 5 01234 would be fun and 4 is just 0,1,2,3 lol. "the 4-trace". Wait this would make 4=absolute. That's cool actually. Also it solves the problem that 00=absolute does not make 100% sense. What's a little unsatisfying is that they are not ordered by fundamentality. It should be 40231. Looks like a postal code. Yeah that place exists in germany it's like 2 hours from my where I am. Maybe there I will find my guru or some shit lol. 5.1 Alternative designations of the 4. 5.1.1 Granularity, Ascendance, Polarity, Complexity, Oneness

@Oyashiro I agree. Autistic people inherently suck at survival. My theory is that back when humans lived in tribes, autistic people were materially supported by the other members of the group. But they were also respected because of their pattern recognition for tracking, predicting the weather etc.

I think I might naturally value beauty and art higher than truth.

golden shadow

If "it doesn't matter who started it" is the rule then what happens is that the powerful will keep oppressing the weak and when the weak try to get some justice they get hit with the "how dare you terrorism!" and this is exactly what we are seeing. There is no such thing as terrorism or that is not the direct result of agression from the west.

@Breakingthewall The more I learn about histrory, the more sure I am that if there is a conflict, the west has started that conflict out of some kind of superiority thinking. This notion of "it doesn't matter who started it, the wiser one gives in" works in nursery school but it does not work in geopolitics.

21 21.1 1 Integrate manifold. It seems the term manifold is more broad than the term field. So maybe god=manifold? 1.1 Manifold ontology also has a nice ring to it. 2 Note to self: Learn more about pyrrhonianism. Especially the thing about always posing the counterargument to archieve equilibrium. 2.1 What is equilibrium? 2.1.1 The equilibrium between... vs the supercombination between... 2.1.2 Is emptiness the equilibrium between existence and non-existence???? This feels right. 2.1.3 eq. vs balance 2.1.4 Love is equilibrium 3 What is trinity 3.1 Augustine if Hippo 🦛 is relevant. 4 integrate ida and pingala 4.1 master and his emissary 4.2 Yin and yang 21.2 1 Reality has three aspects: Continuum, Axis and Trinity. (123) 1.1 Continuum is granularity and it is the strange loop. 2 Learn about numerology. Is is a part of gnosticism? 21.3 1 focal point is point of reflection 21.4 1 What is the true relationship between complexity and simplicity? 1.1 If you only have complexity, you can't have equilibrium. But is is possible to only have simplicity? 1.2 is weakness related to simplicity and power related to complexity? This seems right. 1.3 Does comlexity only apply to Repetition? No. 1.4 What is the relationship between resonance (now a mode of embodiment) and complexity? 2 What is the relationship between contradiction and non-contradiction? Is there also an equilibrium? 3 Without polarization, unity is not possible 4 Is it the case that a pointer can be deconstructed but a pattern can not? 21.5 1 I went to the literal drawing board and came up with some new terms. 1.1 There is the continuum, the polarity and the trinity. They make up the six fundamental principles of reality: The Hexad (?) 1.1.01 The continuum is self-similarity 1.1.02 The polarity is the axis of unity and duality 1.1.03 The trinity is: repetition, reflection, point. 1.1.11 Where is the matter->spirit duality? It's part of the continuum. 1.1.12 Where is dialectics? 1.1.13 Where are the chakras? The chakras are at the same time part of the continuum and the polarity axis (lower chakras duality, higher chakras unity) 1.1.21 There is also the path to liberation. 2 What is epilepsy? 21.6 1 What is the difference between guiding for direction and guiding towards point? 2 Polarity in magnetism vs polarity in the hexad. 3 What is ragebaiting? Can it be mastered? 21.7 1 What is the difference between high frequency and high complexity?

@Shawn Philips It seems you have misunderstood me. I don't disagree with you. I am a HSP myself.

Because Isreal is the aggressor not the gazans. Zionism was never about peace. Zionism was always about superiority and oppression. The zionists never wanted peace with the palestinians ever. It was the goal from the start to genocide them.

It is February 28. at 7:00 am and I've found it. I did not sleep. I needed the answer and I got it. This is not clickbait. I'm now more convinced than ever that ontomodality can provide the answer to all the most important questions of the universe and I just figured out the first and most important one which is: How did it all begin? The argument is very logical which surprises me tbh. I did not expect that it would be possible to answer this question logically. Are you ready? Maybe put some coffee into your mouth since you might need something to spit out. Also, maybe give yourself some time to move into the state of not knowing and loosen your egos grip on your current worldview. I just googled and found out that there exist a philosopher who proposed this named Kit Fine who called it fragmentalism which is fitting. However, it seems he did not find the fragments. THE ANSWER 1. At the beginning there was only the Absolute. It has infinite aspects but no differentiation between them. 2. Then, suddenly, something separated itself from the absolute. This is the Fragment. 3. This Thing must necessarily have at least these seven aspects of the Absolute: 3.1. Impulse, Difference, Temporality, Spaciousness, Wholeness, Interaction, Simultaneity. 4. Proofs of 3. and 3.1 by contradiction: 4.1. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Impulse. If it didn't have Impulse, it would lack the necessary impulse to separate. Q.E.D. 4.2. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that Fragment does not have the aspect of Difference. Without Difference, separation is not possible. Q.E.D. 4.3 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Temporality. Without Temporality, the sequence "not separated, then separated" would not have been possible. Q.E.D. 4.4. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Spaciousness. Without Spaciousness, the Fragment would not have anywhere to separate into. Q.E.D. 4.5. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Wholeness. Without Wholeness, the will and the difference would not have anything to hold on to for the separation. Q.E.D. 4.6 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Interaction. Without Interaction, all the aspects of the absolute could not have interacted to help separate the Spirit. Q.E.D. 4.7 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Simultaneity. Without Simultaneity, all the aspects could not have interacted at the same time which is necessary, since no subset of the seven is able to make a separation as shown in the previous proofs. Q.E.D. This seems to imply that reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness which is hella satisfying and just straight up combines all the existing respected metaphysics. So we have Buddha=Platon=Upanishads in one compact formula lol. Why fragment=idea. All 7 are pure concepts, yet they produce matter, since: Why fragment=matter. Contemplate why matter would not be able to exist without any one of these. Why fragment=spirit. The way I discovered the fragments, is not by observing matter but by observing consciousness and neurodiversity. All the neurodivergencies and all the personality structures seem to be a combination of these 7. I think it can be proven that there can be no mind outside these 7. Try to contemplate this. However, in contrast to matter, consciousness seems to be able to "turn off" these aspects and merge with the absolute, which is what enlightenment is. I think one possible next move is to formulize it more narrowly into mathematics, but it might be the case that 1. 2. and 3. are axioms that can only be intuitively true. I will also research Kit Fine. If this is legit, we might have to spam him with emails lol.

In this post, I want to argue for the following statement: One only develops pedophilia if they have low sensitivity to meaning (ADHD) and are or were in the “abyss” (state of abandonment). Why low Sensitivity to Meaning? (Less important) It is helpful to describe what it means to be sensitive to meaning first. If you are sensitive to meaning, this means that for you, belief is existence. In the eyes of someone who is sensitive to sequentiality (objectivity) and insensitive to meaning, the belief is at best an inductive argument and at worst a random variable and therefore non-existent until measured. The phrase “fucking children is bad” is not an objective, deductive statement. It is inductive and has a probability value (random variable with probability value) attached. “Fucking children did not lead to desirable outcomes the last 1 million times it was done, and therefore it can be induced that the next time we also lead to undesirable outcomes.” This is why, if one is sensitive to meaning, one is not capable of questioning these strong societal axioms since for you, they are absolute and their upholding necessary for existence rather than just probable. My model predicts that people who say “the earth is flat”, “the holocaust didn’t happen”, “age is just a number” or “Kim Jong Un is based” have almost certainly ADHD. So why are most people with ADHD also appalled by pedophilia? Because in order to be a pedophile, you also have to be in the abyss. Why Abyss? I’m using the abyss as a metaphor for the state of being abandoned. If you live in a state of abandonment, you're being is fragmented and you live in separation. If you exist in this state too long, you develop a trauma and a deep fear of being abandoned again. This makes you seek unity obsessively, which is clinginess. What do you do if you have an existential fear of being abandoned? You will choose your relationships in such a way that there's a power dynamic that is in your favor, so that they can't leave. The reason why a relationship with a child is disgusting to you even if you are undogmatic is because children are not self-differentiated enough to be able to separate from you and build an autonomous independent existence if you cling to them. For the person who feels abandoned, this is exactly the appeal of a relationship with a child. If you are in a relationship with a child, you can influence them in such a way, that they are forever dependent on you, which is your "solution" to the pain of abandonment if you are a pedophile. There are of course a plethora of ways to make people dependent on you, so that your fear of abandonment is temporarily relieved. Complete relief can of course never happen that way because there were always be the risk of being abandoned. Also when you are clingy, the odds that you will be abandoned again, are higher, since dating a clingy person is generally unhealthy for that person. Examples Here are a couple of examples on how clingy people cope with their fear of abandonment: Dating/fucking a child. More general: Abusing any form of power imbalance. Stalking. Deliberately making someone close to you ill and then pretending that person is dependent on your help. Or making yourself ill and convincing someone they need to help you and are a bad person if they abandon you. (Example: Mother infusing shit into their babies bloodstream. Munchhausen syndrome) Starting a business with someone and then trapping them in that business. (Example: Andrew Tate) Buying yourself relationships. Trying to bring patriarchy back or install a traditional theocracy to increase the amount of power that men have over women in general again. Creating or buying a social media platform or a forum so that you will always have people who respond to you and praise you. Buying an island with epic parties and “services” that people want to visit. (No particular example comes to mind) Can you find more examples? If my theory is correct, this means that pedophilia is fundamentally different from being gay for example and also curable. I think if the Epstein class would be given an effective way to heal their fear of abandonment, capitalism would collapse.

Yes you can take a psychedelic or you could do what lil Yachty does and walk on a stage SOAK up that energy. And he can handle it since he is relaxed and non-attached. The body mirrors the mind and the mind mirrors the body. It is impossible to be attached in the mind and relaxed in the body nor is it possible to be relaxed in the mind and tight in the body. When one is relaxed and flexible, not only is the intelligence of the fascia activated, but there is a stable controlled flow of energy which leads to immense power. If you think about it, a good performer has control over their audience. Again if that's not power I don't know what is.

Damn you guys need to chill with your "I'm sO anTi cOrrUptIon thAt I cAn'T liStEn to rAp". I love rap and I don't really give much of a shit about what they rap about. If I did not have rap a massive chunk of my happiness would be gone. There are just certain moods where rap works just perfectly to amplify that mood, feel alive and dance. Also I think the movement of rappers is genius. The way they dance. It is both powerful, but also relaxed. It can be argued that this is a superior way of movement from the daoist perspective. You cannot have power without weakness. In the same way, you cannot have strength without relaxation. You cannot tell me this isn't a form of true power. The power of not giving a damn. If I didn't have metal, dubstep, rap, I would be significantly less powerful.

@WonderSeeker Hahahahaha damn congrats dude!

I'm glad to hear that! I think it's tragic that China does not have more soft power, but I understand their reasons.

What the hell?????? Is that true?????? Based?????? Didn't you say you live in south korea??? Why you movin appart from the fact that china is the best country?

It almost sounds like you are in line with the interests of the west? Are you aware that capitalism kills millions of innocent people? Are you aware that the west is the enemy? Non-conflict is really bad since it strengthens the status quo. However the only valid political conflict is the class struggle, any other political conflict exists to benefit the rich and distract from the class struggle.

Sorry that I have to do this but here it goes: I have thought about the connection between mayovirginity and music. Also, I have a unique view on EDM since I spent hundreds of hours producing it, and therefore contemplating it. I have observed that, if one is more on the ADHD side, they like listening to "meaningless" music (remember: people with ADHD are insensitive to meaning and ideology). So EDM basically. (the way I use this word EDM here is roughly this: music that is mainly produced by bedroom producers with the production as the focal point rather than the band, the singer, the lyrics, etc.) The thing with EDM is that very often it doesn't have lyrics and if it does, the lyrics are very shallow. EDM is pretty much identityless. It does not really point to some Identification with a Group. (Counter examples, are: "I listen to country music, because I identify with the American way of living" "I listen to rap because I identify with a rapper lifestyle") People listen to EDM Listen to EDM for its qualia (hsp) and for its pattern (autism), not because of its poetry. I'm not sure what effect being HSP has on the music taste. I think being HSP just means that music has more ability to conjure emotions in you. If music can make you cry, you are likely an HSP. The more autistic a person is, the more repetitive the music is. A lot of autistic people like techno, for example. Not changing one's music taste at all for years is also something that autistic people like to do. If you are way more ADHD than autistic, then what can happen is that you like super chaotic music like hyper pop (notice that the lyrics of hyper pop are often deliberately shallow and nonsensical. Examples: 100gecs, Dylan Brady) I remember listening to the exact same kind of music as Leo when I just got into liking music in the first place. At first, I only listened to EDM and at some point I only listened to dubstep which is batshit insane if I think about it. At some point this narrow music taste was just too limiting for me because I could not connect with anybody through music, so I forced my music taste to evolve and broaden. This decision had an extremely positive effect on almost all of my relationships and I never looked back. Music taste was the cornerstone of my last longterm relationship.

20 20.1 1 (March 19.6.1.5.1.2) I think that the collapse of the wavefunction might be the necessity for “grasping”. So any kind of materialism is faith based. When you believe, you grasp a chair then there has to be some kind of collapse. Okay this also works for the symbol. let’s say you have got a bunch of atoms that are arranged in a chair shape. The moment you see the chair the arrangement “collapses” into the symbol “chair” for you. So the collapse of the wavefunction into the particle is fundamentally the same as the collapse of an image into a symbol. Cool idea. 1.1 I guess I need to relate this to the double slit experiment do I. 1.1.1 (March 19.7.7.7) new trinity conceptualization: Step, Feel, Grasp 20.2 https://youtube.com/shorts/fvdiVlJiy4I?is=Wnwbr2HxS0EIY9N1 Goddamn. I think it is because they don't understand alienation. 20.3 https://youtube.com/shorts/rPZ89xFA8ww?is=jXgGjShalr1MiVqD I think Jerome Powell is a good example of someone who is likely autistic and lives in complete self-acceptence, which leads to this level of incorruptibility. 20.4 Form, Emptiness, Graspability, non-Graspability 1 I have not integrated the term "Form" yet. 1.1 "Form is Emptiness". What does this mean? In my model, non-Wave, which is Silence is Emptiness. 1.1.1 This of course raises the question what quantum fluctuations are and what ripples in spacetime are. 1.1.1.1 I don't know much about quantum fluctuations but I've heard their description is still a mystery and even is an aspect of one of the millennium problems. 1.2 I have an idea. let's look at a tree, for example. If you don't look at it sequentially and you don't look at the qualia and you don't look at the symbol "tree", what your left with is pure Embodiment, which is Form, which is Idea, which is Essence? 2 I will try to gain more consistency in spelling metaphysical concepts capitalized. 1.2.1 It seems that Form, Idea, Essence posit something beyond the Field. Is this also the case for Embodiment? This is a really interesting question. It seems that the Form cannot exist without Boundary which is an aspect of Embodyment, however Embodyment is a very immediate concept and only really ever exists in the now and is not eternal. So it seems like Form and Embodyment potentially have some sort of strange-loop dynamic. 1.2.1.1 2 (1.1.1.1.1) Fluctuations 2.1 It seems that Fluctuation (new metaphysical term?) might even be more fundamental than the Wave, with the Wave possibly being emergent from the Fluctuation. Their etymology is very similar. 2.1.1 Google AI: "Fluctuation originated in the mid-15th century from the Latin fluctuātiōnem ("a wavering or vacillation"). It is derived from the verb fluctuāre ("to undulate or move in waves"), which stems from fluctus ("a wave, flow, or surge") and fluere ("to flow"). The term implies constant, irregular, wavelike motion or change." 2.1.1.1 WHAT THE HELL THE TERM VACILLATION IS CRAZY 2.1.1.1.1 Oxford languages: "the inability to decide between different opinions or actions; indecision." 2.1.1.1.1.1 Ah now I remember, these fluctuation must exist because of the uncertainty principle. Damn that's cold that "the pure Absolute/Field" and therefore Emptiness seems to be impossible. What if everything that exists, exists purely and only because the absolute is ungraspable? Is Ungraspability (another new metaphysical concept unlocked) the origin of existence? The helly? This is such a cool thought. 3 (2.1.1.1.1.1.1) Ungraspability 3.1 It seems I need to update my usage of the Grasp. I used it only in relation with meaning (see 20.1) but it seems to be more universal. 3.2 It seems that the purpose of reason is to grasp. Reasoning is the attempt at grasping. 3.3 Google AI: ""Grasp" (verb) emerged in the mid-14th century, meaning to "reach, grope, or feel around," likely from Middle English graspen or grapsen, a metathesis of Old English græpsan ("to touch, feel"). It stems from Proto-Germanic *grap-/ *grab- ("to seize") and the PIE root *ghrebh- (1) ("to seize, reach"), closely related to "grab" and "grope"." 3.3.1 It seems that the term graspability is very closely tied to the term Embodyment. This would make Ungraspability which is the origin of Fluctuation, non-Embodyment, which is Emptiness. Okay this is kinda mindblowing. 3.3.1.1 Okay so we go from Ungraspability which is non-Embodyment and Emptiness to Fluctuation, which is chaos to Wave which is order to Embodyment which leads to Form? This would affirm the emptiness is form lart of the Heart Sutra. 20.5 1 If I know what reason is, what is truth then? 2 I have not integrated the prefrontal cortex. I should in general try to focus more on explaining the different brain regions. I think I can explain all of them with my model. 2.1 If I remember correctly, the prefrontal cortex has something to do with inhibition. So it seems that it has something to do with being conscious. I have not thought about the being conscious, being unconscious duality with regard to my model in a long time and it has changed a lot since then. 3 List if things I need to integrate: Information, granularity, relativity, being conscious vs being unconscious. 20.6 1 Quantum foam. 4 reflection might be a better word then resonance. So Sequenciality, Reflection, Simultaneity? 20.7 Point 1 Differentiating between grasping an pointing. 1.1 Trinity: Sequence, Point, Reflection 1.2 A symbol "points" into the existence space. Pointing is the essence of the symbol? 1.2.1 Embodiment space? 1.3 A phenomenon is grasped. Qualia is grasped. Qualia is a reflection. 1.4 Every pointing is also grasping. A pattern can be grasped. 1.5 What us the difference between a point and the pointer? Is that which embodies the point the pointer? 1.6 Point vs fixation vs whole vs spot vs relativity vs absolute 1.6.1 vs fix-point vs floating-point 1.6.2 vs singularity 1.6.1.1 A symbol is a pointer to a point. If that point is not interpreted (fixed), it is aflaot (a floating-point). If it is interpreted it becomes fixed (fix-point). Embodiments 2 Examples of Embodiments of different aspects of the trinity. 2.1 Qualia is that which embodies the reflection. 2.2 The pattern is that which embodies the sequence. 2.3 The symbol is that which embodies the point. 2.3.1 No the pointer is that which embodies the point? 2.3.1.1 This seems really brilliant since in physics, a point can not exist in reality because of the uncertainty principle. Does the same hold for the sequence and the reflection? 20.8 Sign language 1 Invent a kind of sign language to decribe every aspect of embodiment and use it when you describe your model to maximize layers of comprehension. 1.1 Sign language is a kind of somatic language. 1.2 What is a gesture? A "word" in a somatic language 1.2.1 Wait this is actually kind of a cool train of thought. 1.3 This is very Petersonian 1.4 "layers of comprehension" is an interesting concept. Addiction 2 What is an addiction in my framework? 2.1 How can my framework help to cure it? 2.2 Example: smoking. 3 I think I will replace the word sequence with repetition since the sequence is a kind of combination of point and repetition. 3.1 "If one repeats a point, it becomes a sequence of points." 3.2 This might have a trickle down effect on my theory. 3.2.1 I think this makes a lot of sense though 20.9 1 Power without vulnerability is fragility. 2 Contemplate about the geometric method of Spinoza and how it relates to your methodology. 2.1 What is the difference between a logic and geometry? 2.2 I seems the reason why Spinoza chose to associate his method with geometry is because geometry was more strict than logic in his time. 2.3 Can I derive my theory from literal geometry? I mean the terms repetition, reflection, point are pretty geometric. 2.3.1 In order for there to be a point, there had to be a multitude of options. The selection of a point is necessarily arbitrary. A point is a choice. 2.3.1.1 Example: At the beginning of the game of life, the first cells have to be chosen. 2.4 learn about the logical structure of euclidean geometry. 3 What is an operator? 4 Methodology 4.1 Apparently there are three different degrees of logical rigor: Formally rigorous (mathematical), Systematically deductive, Linguistically-analytically precise 4.1.1 Can I have the whole cake? 5 Integrate linearity and nonlinearity (a new duality?) 6 Note to self: Fashionable nonesense is a book critiquing the use of scientific terms (like field ?) in philosophy. 6.1 It seems that Deleuze and Félix Guattari are very relevant to my theory. 6.1.1 It seems they borrow concepts from physics like nonlinear systems, singularity, topology, chaos, manifolds in an artistic way which I do too and I love it. I wonder if the authors of fashionable nonsense are just angry science people who don't understand post-modernism and linguistics. 7 Interesting term: Ecosophy 7.1 Field Ecosophy has a nice ring to it.

This conflict between an analytic philosophy and continental philosophy is very fascinating to me. It seems that analytic philosopher say: "when you use a word, also describe it". And continental philosopher say: "overexplanation kills the magic". I kinda get both perspectives. However, this conflict is not that present in me. And I think it is because of the state of not knowing. If I understand correctly, the methodology of Peter Ralston is to do investigate each concept very thoroughly, while not trying to get overly attached to any strict definition, and moving back into the state of not knowing every once in a while.

I want to clearify that it is sometimes somewhat nauseating for me to write and read about this topic. Especially now that the term "pre-pubescent" is put into the mix. However there are few things stronger than my intellectual curiosity so it usually wins. I think it might actually be my number one value.

I am naturally very humorous. I would do more jokes on this forum but I often don't get reactions so I don't know if people think my jokes are funny. Replies like this encourage me to be more humorous