Cred

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

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

I was working on a moral system the other day, and it turned out that it is hard to define what evil is. I'm a satanist and I don't believe that cruelty or selfishness are evil and love and altruism are good for example. I came to the conclusion, that morality might not be absolute, but a historical process and different levels of scarcity necessitate different moral systems. I came to the conclusion, that self-hatred is the "last of the evils" so to say. However, self-hatred is only a symptom. I believe that the cause of self-hatred is virtue and the "good vs bad" dichotomy itself. If you think about it, it makes complete sense from a mythological standpoint. Lucifer is the most sneaky force in the universe, wouldn't it make sense for it to win the war of good vs evil by embodying the war itself? Any time you affirm virtue, goodness, beauty, ability, competence, etc. you participate in the war against the respective opposite and therefore are evil, if it does not come from a place of scarcity. The alternative that needs to be put forward to replace virtue is authenticity. Don't ask: Is it good? Ask instead: Is it authentic? Only if one replaces virtue with authenticity, radical self-acceptance is possible, since virtue is too restrictive. Think about it. If you engage in a restrictive (moral) system, how do you expect to be able to breathe freely? Since I ditched virtuousness I feel so alive and have never been this productive.

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

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

Yes it is extremely practical

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

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

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. 3.2. Proofs of 3. and 3.1 by contradiction: 5.1. 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. 5.2. 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. 5.3 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. 5.4. 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. 5.5. 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. 5.6 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. 5.7 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.

@Carl-Richard almost done

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

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

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

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