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

[Anton Rogachevski]

16 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

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

I'm not as optimistic about it ever bringing me closer to what's actually real. The most it can do is to get to the deepest layer of the substance of experience. But you won't get an explanation of what it is and what's it is made from, but rather you become pure experience and you can just be it. (Spoiler alert you already are it - pure experience) In that sense maybe "Being" is somewhat correct. 

Edited August 19 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

I'm not as optimistic about it ever bringing me closer to what's actually real. The most it can do is to get to the deepest layer of the substance of experience. But you won't get an explanation of what it is and what's it is made from, but rather you become pure experience and you can just be it. (Spoiler alert you already are it - pure experience) In that sense maybe "Being" is somewhat correct. 

Sure. It does demand greater authenticity from you, in any case.

Maybe experience is actually born of mind and isn't existential. You are you. But what is that?

Being is not only correct - nothing else is. Being is an absolute.

And yet, this is ultimately speculation, as fascinating as it may be.

Edited August 19 by UnbornTao

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

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

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.

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)

 

What kind of truth are you talking about?

 

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

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

 

@Anton Rogachevski Maybe you would see the meaning of my questions more clearly if I post gpt-5s perspective on the answers you gave to them.

 

Excellent — now we’ve got Anton’s replies on the table, so we can assess them under your chosen criteria: relevance, significance, power, and consistency. I’ll go point by point, matching his answers to your objections.

1. On beliefs obscuring raw experience

Anton’s reply:

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

Relevance: Medium. He shifts from your question about dependency (beliefs derived from experience) to a broader Kantian distinction (noumena vs phenomena). He addresses “obscuration” only indirectly by saying “all concepts are hallucination.” That sidesteps your dependency argument.

Significance: High in terms of his framework — he’s basically redefining “raw experience” as empty and any belief as distortion. But this answer radically transforms the initial position: it now sounds more like a mystical/nihilistic stance (“emptiness,” no-thought) rather than Husserlian bracketing.

Power: Weak as a reply to your objection. Your question was: how can beliefs obscure what they depend on? He doesn’t resolve the logical structure, but instead dissolves the problem by saying experience itself is empty. That avoids, but doesn’t neutralize, your critique.

Consistency: Moderate. He’s consistent with a strong phenomenological/mystical line (concept = hallucination, emptiness as ground), but inconsistent with the original claim that beliefs “obscure” experience. If raw experience is “empty,” there’s nothing to obscure in the first place.

2. On construct vs direct experience

Anton’s reply:

“I think you may have misunderstood. … 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.”

Relevance: Medium-high. He acknowledges your concern but reframes his position. Instead of “construct vs experience,” he now says “experience vs scientific description.” That’s not the same dichotomy you critiqued, so he’s partly dodging the issue.

Significance: Moderate. This clarification softens his position — it drifts away from radical constructivism toward a pragmatic dualism (phenomenal vs scientific world). But it also abandons the sharp constructivist bite that triggered your critique in the first place.

Power: Weak against your objection. Your critique forced him to retreat into vagueness: “the unreachable by science (yet)” is not a clear ontological stance. It doesn’t explain whether raw impressions exist or not, nor whether “construct” means willful schema or constitution of consciousness.

Consistency: Low-to-moderate. He started with “reality as construct,” now he’s shifted to “two domains (experience vs science).” These don’t line up cleanly. It sounds like a redefinition to escape the force of your question.

3. On truth beyond constructs

Anton’s reply:

“What kind of truth are you talking about?”

Relevance: Low. This is a deflection rather than an answer. You asked whether there is any truth in addition to constructs; he avoids engagement by shifting the burden back onto you.

Significance: Low. This doesn’t deepen his position, just sidesteps.

Power: Very weak as a reply — it reads as evasive rather than constructive.

Consistency: Neutral. He doesn’t commit himself, so no inconsistency, but also no substantive position.

4. On language and logic

Anton’s reply:

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

Relevance: Medium. This does address your challenge indirectly: instead of defending ineffability claims, he reclassifies logic/language as pragmatic rather than truth-bearing. But it doesn’t squarely handle your paradox objection.

Significance: Moderate-high. This is a strong materialist/pragmatist reorientation: truth isn’t what language is for. That’s a real philosophical position.

Power: Medium. It partially disarms your critique: if logic/language are only survival tools, then the charge of “self-refutation” doesn’t matter — the point wasn’t truth to begin with. But that changes the playing field entirely, and it leaves unanswered: if they’re not tools of truth, what is?

Consistency: Moderate. It’s consistent with a pragmatist or Darwinian view of cognition, but inconsistent with his earlier gestures toward “phenomenological truth.” If all language is survival grammar, how do we talk about “truth” at all?

 

As you can see it isn't very happy with most of these answers, nor were I, you supposedly should have invested a lot of time and energy into these topics given that you write essays on it on dedicated websites, I produce very clear questions that directly hints to or even explicitly demonstrates problem with the positions that got paraphrased for readabilities sake. You either agree with the easily readable characterisation of your positions in those paraphrasing or you don't, and if you don't then just say so and Ill be happy to demonstrate where in your essay I got them from and if you do agree with those paraphrasings then we can get into how my concerns connect to them, so that we may finally discuss an actual agreement or disagreement. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

6 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

beliefs “obscure” experience.

Basically nothing can obscure experience within itself because the substance of belief is also experience.

--

You are positing some very interesting questions but at points they seem to digress from the topic. Some of the new and interesting topics you raised like "constructivism" I'm simply not familiar with yet.

Sure if you chose to paraphrase it would be nice to cite the original so I could know exactly the point I was trying to make. It just seems you "saw" in my points something that wasn't originally meant.

I really appreciate your answers and most of all your interest in this! So thank you dear friend.

[Anton Rogachevski]

6 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Anton’s reply:

“What kind of truth are you talking about?”

I was really interested in what kind of truth you are talking about and the kind you are really interested in.

[Anton Rogachevski]

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

experience is actually born of mind

This makes sense. I don't see any other thing besides experience itself as a substance of me.

 

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Being is not only correct - nothing else is. Being is an absolute.

In what way is it absolute? How to verify this in experience?

 

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

And yet, this is ultimately speculation, as fascinating as it may be.

I say to leave all speculation and focus on what is directly available to us right now the true nature of experience.

[Reciprocality]

7 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Sure if you chose to paraphrase it would be nice to cite the original so I could know exactly the point I was trying to make. It just seems you "saw" in my points something that wasn't originally meant.

@Anton Rogachevski Alright, here comes the forensic analysis. 

 

The direct excerpts from your essay that motivated the paraphrases:

 

Paraphrase 1 — “Suspend beliefs; beliefs obscure raw experience”

“Set aside everything you believe to be true, just for a moment.” -> explicit instruction to suspend beliefs before inquiry.

“our access to it was only through belief.” -> claims access to “what’s out there” comes via belief (mediated).

“Eventually, these stories become so dominant that they replace the direct ‘live feed’ with an endless rerun of mental commentary.” ->  explains the mechanism by which belief/thoughts obscure direct experience.

 

Paraphrase 2 — “Reality is constructed / arises within direct experience”

“the appearance of a wall inside of experience is a hologram.” -> treats perceived objects as appearances inside experience rather than independently given.

“The creation of ‘reality’ occurs when thoughts floating in the void are glued together into a story.” -> describes a construction mechanism: thoughts “glued” into a story produce what you call reality.

“’Reality’ is the dream of the unawakened void.” -> frames reality as arising from a dreaming/appearance process, not as a mind-independent noumenon.

 

Paraphrase 3 — “Language and logic are limited; paradox/non-conceptual methods may be more suitable”

“some of the ideas may seem paradoxical—even contradictory at times—but that’s because we’re pointing toward something that cannot be captured in conventional language.” -> explicit claim language cannot capture the target.

“it’s paradoxical, so logic can’t grasp it.” -> direct denial of logic’s capacity to fully grasp the subject.

“What we are trying to do here is to use thought to describe itself, and later to cancel itself.” -> indicates conceptual language is provisional and meant to be negated, supporting the use of non-conceptual methods.

 

If any of these quotes are taken out of context, tell me which paraphrase you dispute and I’ll paste the surrounding sentence/paragraph for clarity. If you disagree with the explanatory line I gave for a specific quote, point to the exact sentence you think reads differently and I’ll show how the paraphrase follows from the text.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Reciprocality Oh I get it now, it's about the previous essay about Deconstructing reality that was linked in the introduction. In that case your paraphrasing is spot on. 

In this essay I try to make it as technical and rational as possible to be introduced to a serious philosopher rather than the old essay which is like a modern Buddhism take.

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

In what way is it absolute? How to verify this in experience?

If truth is 'what is', it cannot not be. Is is. 

One distinction to bring into our attention is that, among other things, we don't know what we are. Which is to say, we confuse "being" with our selves. Who we take ourselves to be is distinct from what we are as a conscious entity. 

Regardless, that's something for us to become conscious of - What is Being? What is the self?

8 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

I say to leave all speculation and focus on what is directly available to us right now

Good pointer.

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

'what is'

Might be good enough for non dual gurus, but it's very problematic if you want some serious philosophical argument. What do you mean by "what is"?

 

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

What is Being? What is the self?

These are the same - pure experience - pure hallucination

[UnbornTao]

21 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Might be good enough for non dual gurus, but it's very problematic if you want some serious philosophical argument. What do you mean by "what is"?

I don't want to argue, I'm just saying that Being is absolute, but that is a reality for us to directly become conscious of. When doing that, though, all ideas and beliefs have to be set aside. So really, the assertion, by itself, is not very useful for this purpose.

A good first step is to realize what is conceptual, what is activity, and what is the nature of Now. What is now?

We have several enlightenments to catch!

Quote

These are the same - pure experience - pure hallucination

We could start by recognizing that you are a conscious entity. 

You are, but that "you" is not your self. The self is a conceptual overlay on experience - an "illusion." It is constructed. Whenever we start to become aware of what's conceptual in our experience, we find we have a hard time finding the substrate of "experience," because it is conceptually-dominated. Experience may be a matrix of mind, ergo not existential.

Being is not a concept.

Edited August 20 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

25 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

for us to directly become conscious of

Are you directly conscious of Being as absolute?

What does "absolute" even mean? In what way?

 

"What is now?"

That question doesn't make sense. What isn't Now?

Edited August 20 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Are you directly conscious of Being as absolute?

What does "absolute" even mean? In what way?

I have not yet. Being is inconceivable and what’s "so", encompassing all possibilities, true under all conditions, and independent of circumstance. That's one possible definition.

It's practically unavoidable to use rhetorical devices to explain 'absolute.' Imagine the universe, and everything within it, as a painting - the Absolute is the blank space on which the drawing is made. A rather simplistic analogy, but it gets the point across.

5 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

"What is now?"

That question doesn't make sense. What isn't Now?

What is the present? What is this moment?

For example, observe how we tend to hold the present moment as a point in time. But the now isn't a point in time.

Contemplate where Now is, and you'll see it is hard to put your finger on. You'll find that what you consider to be currently happening, or what's present, is always relating to a past or a future, even if it's only a millisecond from now.

Edited August 20 by UnbornTao

[Anton Rogachevski]

@UnbornTao

I'm only conscious of the ever present now, and not of anything else. There's not a thing that is not Now, nor would such a thing make sense.

[DocWatts]

For what it's worth, this kind of in-depth and thoughtful analysis requires time to reflect and integrate - which is why I suspect that the Intellectual Stuff form gets less traffic than sections of the Forum.

I really dig your writing style, which does an admirable job of making a complex topic approachable without dumbing things down.

You also do an impressive job of integrating the sort of insights that Leo shares in his videos within a rigorous, phenomenological analysis of experience. All too often I see the sort of topics that you take the time to deal with here handwaved away with catch-all terms like 'God' or 'The Absolute', without the sort of grounded deconstruction of these concepts which makes these notions feel earned.

There's a surprising amount of overlap with my own epistemic and ontological framework, with an obvious difference in emphasis. I'd be curious to hear what some of your influences were - the shadow of Alfred Korzybski, Martin Heideggar, and Hubert Dreyfus seem obvious (but perhaps not, there are of course other places to absorb these ideas).

Some favorite sections from your piece:

From a meta-phenomenological perspective, this does not confirm an external God’s existence, but rather situates “God” as the felt substance of experience itself – an infinite, divine-like reality encountered within consciousness. This view honors the power of the experience while maintaining humility about its ontological meaning. 

Love, love, love this! A perfect encapsulation of the phenomenological God that I subscribe to - where the big G isn't a metaphysical entity but our felt connection to Reality itself.

The intensity or beauty of an experience does not determine its ontological status. The mind is evolutionarily tuned to treat powerful sensations as meaningful, but this is a heuristic – not a reliable truth-detection mechanism. Mystical experiences are vivid, coherent, and emotionally overwhelming, but this doesn’t mean they describe an ultimate reality. They may reveal something about the nature of experience, not what exists outside of it.

Perfectly sums up some of my criticisms of psychedelic mysticism - we can attend to mystical states with an appropriate amount of skepticism without being dismissive of their value. A very William James-ian point.

Edited August 20 by DocWatts

[Anton Rogachevski]

@DocWatts

Wow! Thank you for the amazing feedback. I love to see that at least someone finds this kind of writing useful. I'll be sure to check out your essay as soon as possible.

It's funny you should mention these kind of sources as I haven't even touched any of them. I do have trouble with reading books. The commitment to such a large  volume always deters me. I do learn a lot from podcasts and the like. (I need to be really engaged to get those receptors to perceive at least something)

Of course that means I might reinvent the wheel a couple of times, but on the plus side I get the nice feeling of eureka even though someone must have thought about it at one point. 

Most of the inspiration is from personal contemplation of direct experience. Trying to put things together to make sense of what experience is.

Edited August 20 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@UnbornTao

I'm only conscious of the ever present now, and not of anything else. There's not a thing that is not Now, nor would such a thing make sense.

I suggest that you are conflating being conscious of whatever the now is with the recognition of this layer of mental overlay - experience.

Consider this: the now isn't recognized for what it is. What is commonly regarded as "happening presently" is actually an activity - a process.

The impossibility of locating the now, from where we currently stand, needs to be experienced for the realization to make a difference. The now seems elusive, even though it is "true." Take a look. Where do you pay attention when considering this present moment? What is it that you're calling 'now'?

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Where do you pay attention when considering this present moment? What is it that you're calling 'now'?

Here and now, it's eternal. It's another way to look at the nature of experience. Phenomenologically speaking there is no such thing as "time" besides a conception of it. There cannot be an experience of something that doesn't exist, if that is seen, it all becomes an eternal now.

Edited August 20 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Here and now, it's eternal. It's another way to look at the nature of experience. Phenomenologically speaking there is no such thing as "time" besides a conception of it. There cannot be an experience of something that doesn't exist, if that is seen, it all becomes an eternal now.

The trick is having insight, beyond the theorizing. 

Maybe experience is not existential. So you can experience something that exists as a product of mental activity. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@UnbornTao

For the experiencer, from his phenomenological perspective nothing exists but experience. I don't have theories, I don't need them anymore, only direct consciousness. Funny coming from someone who is working so hard to develop a theory of epistemology right? I think that there is some purpose for a theory as an instrument to keep pointing back to raw experience. That is why I want a theory of epistemology that is based in a basic phenomenological ground. Very simple, like a rock. 

"experience is not existential"
What do you mean by that?

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

So you can experience something that exists as a product of mental activity. 

You can't experience anything that isn't an experience.

Edited August 20 by Anton Rogachevski