A small teaser for the upcoming new theory I'm working on

[Anton Rogachevski]

Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework

Before we begin you might want to check out the introductory essay from which this theory stems, as it is more direct and less technical than this one is going to be, and also you will see the thought process under the hood that was involved in developing this theory.

Introduction

The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. While it also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths, it avoids collapsing into idealism. There remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory.

We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary.

So let's dig in, shall we?

 

----

Update:

For the sake of discussion I'd made the essay's draft available so you may read more if you like.
 

Edited August 15 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

[Anton Rogachevski]

On 8/16/2025 at 0:06 AM, UnbornTao said:

Haha at least one person is excited 

It seems the total amount of the fucks given is one 

It's sad how this thread is the least popular on the forum, it seems we are all Spirituality junkies high on non dual mumbo jumbo.

Do you see an value to the theory? Has it made you think about it? Changed your perspective on something? 

Edited Monday at 12:53 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

22 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Haha at least one person is excited 

It seems the total amount of the fucks given is one 

It's sad how this thread is the least popular on the forum, it seems we are all Spirituality junkies high on non dual mumbo jumbo.

Do you see an value to the theory? Has it made you think about it? Changed your perspective on something? 

The article has merit and is certainly an intelligent take. I also appreciate its underlying pointer toward authentic experiences and the direction it proposes. Still, it's challenging to provide feedback right now, as I'm focused on more grounded inquiries - picture a Zen monk destroying every belief he holds.

For what it's worth, I still think we tend to believe we are our minds, and that we can think our way to what's true.

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

For what it's worth, I still think we tend to believe we are our minds, and that we can think our way to what's true.

Can we really? I think we can only be directly conscious of what's True without thinking about it.

 

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

The article has merit and is certainly an intelligent take. I also appreciate its underlying pointer toward authentic experiences and the direction it proposes.

Thank you dear friend 
 

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Still, it's challenging to provide feedback right now, as I'm focused on more grounded inquiries - picture a Zen monk destroying every belief he holds.

"Before Enlightenment carrying water and chopping wood" - We just love thinking about progress as humans

[UnbornTao]

25 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Can we really? I think we can only be directly conscious of what's True without thinking about it.

That's part of the trick, isn't it? Until we've had several enlightenments, it's just an educated guess, a possibility. Don't we all already assume we know what enlightenment is? Getting clear on what's actual and what's conceptual is a theme that keeps coming back to bite us. The mind lies a lot.

Quote

Thank you dear friend 
 

Thank you, I often appreciate our discussions.

Quote

"Before Enlightenment carrying water and chopping wood" - We just love thinking about progress as humans

This is challenging - even the Zen guys fall into the trap of "admiring the Buddha when you meet him on the road." In other words, they still confuse customs, teachings, traditions, and assumptions with actual breakthroughs and insights.

How can we use thinking in a way that stays within the ballpark of genuine discovery? How do we create a useful and effective perspective or framework for this ontological work? Your work might already be moving in that direction. Instead of becoming just another belief system, it has to become increasingly real.

Edited Monday at 02:59 PM by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

"admiring the Buddha when you meet him on the road."

Kill him!

Yes when there's a powerful experience all the previous theories that sounded profound sound all like baby babbling.

[UnbornTao]

On 8/18/2025 at 3:58 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

Kill him!

But where is the fucker? 

Quote

Yes when there's a powerful experience all the previous theories that sounded profound sound all like baby babbling.

There's a story of a renowned Chan (Zen) monk who taught for many years, giving lectures all over China. After having done that for a time, at some point, upon attaining enlightenment, he burned all of his previous teachings, considering them worthless.

It's an interesting perspective.

I did some research - my story is a largely fictional interpretation. It might have been based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangyan_Zhixian

---

Burn my sutras ✅

Watch for tiles hitting the ground ⬜

Edited yesterday at 11:42 AM by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

@UnbornTao

Thomas Aquinas the world's most famous theologian has said the same about all his books after an experience.

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@UnbornTao

Thomas Aquinas the world's most famous theologian has said the same about all his books after an experience.

Where can that be found?

This are the people you generally can trust had something real going on with them - probably some sort of awakening.

Edited Monday at 06:36 PM by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

@UnbornTao

I only heard it from Alex O'connor but i guess you can ask GPT for the source.

[UnbornTao]

@Anton Rogachevski GPT:

Quote

The statement you’re referring to is attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, who, after a profound mystical experience in 1273, reportedly said, “All that I have written seems like straw to me” (Latin: “Mihi videtur ut palea”). This remark occurred after he experienced a vision during Mass, where he believed he had a direct encounter with the divine.

According to historical accounts, after this experience, Aquinas ceased writing and declared to his secretary, Brother Reginald, that he could no longer continue his work because his previous writings seemed insignificant compared to what he had witnessed. This event is considered a pivotal moment in Aquinas’s life and is often interpreted as a profound expression of humility and recognition of the limitations of human understanding in the face of divine revelation.

It’s important to note that while this statement is widely attributed to Aquinas, the exact source and context of his words are subjects of scholarly discussion. The accounts vary, and some details may be apocryphal or embellished over time. Nevertheless, the essence of the statement reflects Aquinas’s deep spiritual experience and his acknowledgment of the transcendence of divine truth.

 

Edited Monday at 06:07 PM by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

@Anton Rogachevski As long as we are moving in the direction of 'authentic experience,' we’re making progress.

[Anton Rogachevski]

21 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Anton Rogachevski As long as we are moving in the direction of 'authentic experience,' we’re making progress.

How does he not see that his contemplation most likely had led to this, I don't think it's just spontaneous.

Edited Tuesday at 04:44 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Reciprocality]

@Anton Rogachevski

 

Paraphrasing nr. 1: "Beliefs about what exists obscure raw experience. To truly explore reality, one must suspend these beliefs— "a new and humble perspective."

How far doe this obscuration go? If all beliefs and their contingent concepts are derived from active engagement with raw experience, how can they obscure it? How precisely does it work when the general principle that B being contingent on A entails the independency of A upon B--has exceptions, such as you propose when "beliefs obscure raw experience". 

 

 

 

Paraphrasing nr. 2: What we call “reality” is constructed or arises within direct experience—what appears real is filtered through our perceptual and cognitive framework, not granted as some independent noumenal realm.

You appear to propose a disjunction, an exclusive duality or dichotomy between "construct" and "direct experience" in the first clause, in doing so wouldn't you have to deny the existence of a disinterested raw Humean "secondary impression" that merely reproduce semantically insignificant composites of shapes and sensory magnitudes--and if not--how are such things "constructs" without losing the argumentative punch reduction to constructivism has in the first place? Isn't the whole premise of a "construct" that it is a schema downstream from and subservient to the will of the agent--therewith serving it as a means to its ends--such that there is both analytical coherence to the concept of a "construct" and an ongoing conflict between it and whatever truth could exist in addition to it?

 

 

Paraphrasing nr. 3: Position: Language and logic are inherently limited when exploring the nature of existence. Paradox and non-conceptual methods might be more appropriate tools because the subject is beyond conventional description. 

Are you thereby proposing that something must be positively affirmed for language, logic and concept to be an appropriate tool for exploring it? And even if you were to hold that position, aren't you denying that very position by attributing to the nature of existence the "non-positive" predicate of being indescribable by words? 

 

Edit: a few misconstructions. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:10 PM by Reciprocality

[UnbornTao]

12 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

How does he not see that his contemplation most likely had lad to this, I don't think it's just spontaneous.

Hard to tell. The work done beforehand probably did help - the act of openly dwelling on something - yet the realization itself is always immediate.

In a sense, we are always starting anew with this ontological work.

Edited Tuesday at 02:59 PM by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

this ontological work

Why do you keep saying it's Ontological? In what sense? 

[Anton Rogachevski]

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

To truly explore reality

If by reality you mean the noumena then beliefs are the best you can wish for.

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

How far doe this obscuration go?

If we talk about Truth as Phenomenological Truth, then all concepts are pure hallucination, because raw unfiltered experience is completely empty - so any attempt whatsoever to think about it will be wrong the moment you start thinking about it.

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

dichotomy between "construct" and "direct experience"

I think you may have misunderstood. It's hard to see what you are referring to in the original. I propose a duality between the unreachable by science (yet) experience, and the actual physical world which can be described by science in some sense. (also not complete ofcourse)

 

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

and whatever truth could exist in addition to it?

What kind of truth are you talking about?

Edited Tuesday at 05:16 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[Anton Rogachevski]

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Language and logic

Are simply the grammar of how the mind works, they are not tools of truth, but of practicality and survival. 

[UnbornTao]

45 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Why do you keep saying it's Ontological? In what sense? 

Aren't we working to become conscious of what's existentially true, in this context? What is being, reality, Now, etc.

Edited Tuesday at 05:30 PM by UnbornTao