Challenge: Invent A New Word

[Joshe]

14 hours ago, aurum said:

Non-participatory Dissonance:

This is a good one. I was just fleshing this out a few weeks back. 

Realness confronts unreality just by being in the room. I've experienced strangers having a big problem with me for no reason, without ever even speaking to them. I didn't get it for the longest time but then I realized, some people see me as a threat, which doesn't make sense because I'm not aggressive, loud, big, imposing, etc.

"I’m loyal to reality, not performance. I’m not seeking approval. I’ll see what’s actually here."

People feel something like "Wait… this person doesn’t need me to like them. This person isn’t reinforcing the mask I’ve built. This person’s attention feels… unfiltered."

• Most people use their eyes to solicit approval, signal friendliness, or reinforce the other’s identity.

• If your gaze is neutral, still, wide, and non-seeking, it can be polarizing. 

• That lack of neediness or approval-seeking = "This person isn’t buying into my persona."

• Neurotypical people subtly mirror expressions — nods, eyebrows, micro-smiles — even when they're faking interest.

• If you're naturally more still, contemplative, or discerning, your face becomes non-compliant.

• This is read as "not participating in the unspoken agreement to pretend."

• ❗ “He’s watching but not joining. Is he judging me? Is he analyzing me?”

I think it's mostly threatening because they intuit you see their performance, they feel inferior, and sometimes they're jealous of such independence. 

[Carl-Richard]

Semantic confusion: thinking you've invented a new concept when you're just pointing out a particular example of it and giving it a new word.

[Joshe]

Frame Fluidity: The capacity to shift between different conceptual, philosophical, or perceptual lenses at will — including belief systems, interpretive paradigms, or internal models of reality.

Attentional Granularity: the ability to modulate the scale of attention — from zooming in on a micro-detail to panning out for a macro-level view — and to toggle between them fluently. This governs how precisely a person can inspect thought-objects, environmental data, or emotional sensations. Granularity also includes the ability to sustain high-resolution focus without over-compression or blur.

Introspective Reflexivity: The capacity to monitor, question, and reflect on one’s own mental activity in real time. It allows a person to not only observe their thoughts but also to ask meta-level questions about the origins, patterns, or validity of those thoughts as they’re occurring.

Self-Authoring Capacity: The extent to which an individual has taken conscious ownership of their identity, worldview, values, and life trajectory. It reflects whether their beliefs, actions, and goals arise from independent internal construction — rather than external scripts inherited from culture, authority, or peer groups.

Edited June 12 by Joshe

[EternalForest]

The Skydiver’s Standard:

You don’t need to jump out of a plane to say skydiving looks dangerous.

That’s the heart of the Skydiver’s Standard — a rhetorical double standard where someone demands high-stakes, full-experience immersion before you're “qualified” to critique something, while they freely judge other things with little to no experience. "You can’t criticize gymnastics unless you've trained for years." "You can’t question a religion unless you've lived it for decades." "You can’t critique a political theory unless you’ve read all 2,000 pages of its founding texts." And yet, the same person feels perfectly comfortable making casual judgments about things they haven’t gone deep into. That’s the double standard. It’s selective gatekeeping — raising the bar for critique only when it protects their own views or identity, while lowering it everywhere else.

Examples in use:

“You're telling me I need to read the entire Bible before I can question anything about it — that's the Skydiver’s Standard.”

“She says I can’t have an opinion on contemporary art unless I’ve studied it for years, but she rants about video games all the time. Classic Skydiver’s Standard.”

“I don’t need to be a chef to know when food tastes bad. Stop using the Skydiver’s Standard to deflect.”

Why it matters:

People often get shut down in debates because they haven’t “done the work” — not just of being informed, but of being deeply initiated. The Skydiver’s Standard exposes how that bar is applied unevenly, depending on whose worldview is under scrutiny. It gives us a simple, powerful phrase to push back: “I can understand the risks, patterns, or flaws in something without fully living it.” We don’t have to jump out of a plane to know the dangers.

And remember, the Skydiver’s Standard is about proportional critique, not uninformed opinion. So as long as you're not using it to reject expertise, and instead using it to challenge inconsistent gatekeeping, you're encouraging fair, thoughtful discourse — not laziness.

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Semantic confusion: thinking you've invented a new concept when you're just pointing out a particular example of it and giving it a new word.

You are being a metahole. 

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

People feel something like "Wait… this person doesn’t need me to like them. This person isn’t reinforcing the mask I’ve built. This person’s attention feels… unfiltered."

Yeah, but be careful because I'm talking about something beyond just simple approval-seeking.

Approval-seeking could be a horizontal development phenomenon. I.e, two people at Stage Orange where only one of them is chasing approval.

I'm talking about a phenomenon here that strictly emerges from vertical development. Where because you've transcended and included their frame, you are not explicitly agreeing with them. But you're also not strictly disagreeing with them. You're just unintentionally out-framing them.

So this is a higher / lower phenomena related to frames. Not just emotional neediness.

I asked GPT to summarize:

"Non-participatory dissonance occurs when a later developmental stage silently withholds participation in a frame it sees through, thereby destabilizing that frame in the other—without contradiction, judgment, or overt withdrawal."

[Vynce]

Wordism

Definition: The constraining tendency to put everything into words that end with -ism.

Example: "..to hell with all your wordisms, a true truth seeker like me is not found into any of your -isms."

 

Edited June 12 by Vynce

[Vynce]

Infinisex

Definition: That was is happening when you converge into infinity and love.

Example: "oh shit.. I feel it coming.. Infinisex .. *slobbery sex sounds*"

[Carl-Richard]

Solipsistic human centipede: Actualized.org.

[CARDOZZO]

Leology

The study of rat consciousness.

[Lyubov]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm also working on:

Nolipsist -- people who mindlessly reject and deny solipsism.

Sólipsist - people who adamantly say only solipsism is possible in infinity 

[integral]

2 hours ago, AlienGeometry said:

Metalentless: Meaning that it doesn't have metaphysical intelligence, intelligence about abstract concepts from pure philosophy, such as Reality, Love, God, etc.

Example: A hyper advanced Alien species has been discovered. We've communicated with them and they think we're Metalentless.

LOOL Metalentless sounds like someone who's relentlessly meta were it's insufferable to speak to them.

Like the word "Relentless + Metaphysical"

Edited June 12 by integral

[integral]

Corrupton

The smallest measurable unit of corruption.

1 Corrupton = 1 Unit of Corruption.

A minute droplet of ideological contamination.

A particulate speck of corruptive influence.

This would be categorized under the metaphysical mathematics that will come in the future.

“Each back-room deal cost us 0.2 corruptons, but taken together they sank the company’s reputation.”

Distortlet

A tiny twist of truth or logic.

“She slipped a distortlet into her summary just enough to make the story plausible.”

Impurite

A singular impurity embedded in a experience.

Edited June 12 by integral

[Keryo Koffa]

Equams
Aesthetic Counter-Holons | Cross-Paradigm(ic/hk/al) Qualia Equivalents
(Imagine quantum superimposed percept switches like E2A2O)

Placebo Culture (Autonomous Gaslight)
Autopilot belief systems propagating experiential manifestations of self fulfilling prophecies.
(not just influencing probability but generating the qualia state of consciousness perception)

Edited June 12 by Keryo Koffa

[integral]

@Leo Gura this Gamified Contemplation is great, maybe you should add them to the end of each of your blog posts instead of just saying: contemplate you scoundrels!

Gameplation.

Edited June 12 by integral

[AerisVahnEphelia]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm also working on:

Nolipsist -- people who mindlessly reject and deny solipsism.

don't worry they don't exist !

[Jannes]

Overabsolutizing 

Definition:

The misapplication of absolute truth to a relative context where it is not appropriate. Overabsolutizing bypasses the concrete, human dimension of experience by prematurely invoking transcendent principles. For example, framing harmful behavior as “all love” or dismissing one’s life direction with “nothing matters in the absolute sense, so I can just give in.”

[Jannes]

I think mental masturbation is a very potent word invention. 

[Eskilon]

TOR(The Outwards Rat) 🐀

Definition: Someone who just does stuff, socialize and endlessly distract himself/herself. Such a person never bothers to sit down, close their eyes and introspect on Metaphysics & Ontology -- Missing God entirely.

Example : A classic extrovert who gets tangled up in attention from others, family and survival affairs.

Edited June 12 by Eskilon

[Eskilon]

TCG( The Conflation Gaslighter)🤡

Definition: Somebody who will say that youre conflating things when you tell deep truths they don't yet comprehend.

Example: Person A : "Holy shit dude! I just had an insight that the Absolute is the relative, and the relative is the absolute🤯."

Person B : "No dude, you're conflating things! This is a category error! The absolute is absolute, and the relative is the relative, they can't be the same thing! Use rigor in your contemplation. Where's the proof?! You are being too loosey-goosey!"

Edited June 12 by Eskilon