A Rational Dualistic Philosophical Framework for Understanding Spirituality

[Anton Rogachevski]

I believe we can explain spirituality in philosophical terms, which would make this profound and useful field more accessible while reducing unnecessary friction with rational thinkers. That's what I always try to do - to build a bridge for those at Stage Orange that are ready for the next level and want a no bullshit approach. 

I'm currently working on a theory that will explicate all of the most important aspects of spirituality. As I'm working on it I would love to have a discussion with you and to help make it better and move it forward, so I'm very excited to share it with you and I would love for you to check out the current most updated version on my blog.

 

-----------

 

Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework 

Introduction

The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. It also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths. It avoids collapsing into idealism, and 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?

Keep reading in the blog for the most updated version.

Edited August 19 by Anton Rogachevski

[Anton Rogachevski]

Defining the Key Terms

Phenomenology
Phenomenology is the study of experience as it appears, from the first-person perspective. It asks: What is it like to be here, right now? It suspends, or “brackets,” questions about whether what we experience corresponds to an external reality.

Meta-Phenomenology
Meta-phenomenology is the reflection on phenomenology itself - it observes how we observe, how we interpret our experiences, and how we make inferences about the world from within experience.

Ontology
Ontology is the philosophical study of what exists “out there,” independent of perception. This framework avoids ontological claims entirely - it neither affirms nor denies what ultimately exists, because such claims can’t be directly verified from within experience.

Phenomenological Truth
A phenomenological truth is something undeniable within experience itself, regardless of whether it corresponds to external reality. Seeing red is a phenomenological truth; knowing what “red” is in the world is not.

Phenomenological Empiricism
This theory rests on a simple but powerful principle: every claim must be directly verifiable within your own immediate experience. Don’t take my word for it - look carefully for yourself, observe your moment-to-moment experience, and see if what I’m saying holds true. The only true ground for this framework is what you can find firsthand.

Descartes’ Demon
Descartes’ famous thought experiment challenges the very reliability of our minds. He imagines an all-powerful, malicious demon capable of deceiving us about everything we perceive — not just in small ways, but entirely. What if all that we see, hear, and experience is nothing more than an elaborate illusion of the demon’s making, with no way for us to peer beyond it? In such a world, everything we “know” would be only what the demon allows us to know.

Sanity
Defining such a term in just a few words is difficult, but broadly speaking, sanity is the meta-belief that beliefs can track reality. We often say an insane person has “lost touch with reality” — so remaining in touch with reality, and perceiving it without serious distortion, carries deep epistemological importance. Sanity is something to value and protect, not to gamble with through reckless experimentation, as some spiritual seekers do with psychedelics.

 

Edited August 20 by Anton Rogachevski

[Anton Rogachevski]

Epistemology – How can we know anything? What does it mean to “know”?

The brain has evolved to survive, not to access Ontological truth. It may or may not be able to actually derive truth about the external world, but we can’t know that for sure.

How do you know you aren’t dreaming right now? If we are dreaming right now, then everything we think we’ve figured out – about truth, reality, physics, philosophy, even this theory – could be meaningful only within the dream, and meaningless outside it. 

This is a framework for understanding how knowledge arises within experience, one that avoids making claims about what really exists “out there.” Instead, it reflects critically on how experience produces the appearance of an external world and uses a probabilistic model to explain belief, perception, and sanity. It is grounded in what can be directly verified phenomenologically, while remaining skeptical of ontological conclusions.

[Anton Rogachevski]

The formation of a Duality between experience and the external world

Experience, as it is lived – or seen from within, is inherently non-dual – there is no internal split between “subject” and “object” within the immediacy of perception. However, when one reflects on experience from a “meta-level” (which unsurprisingly itself arises within experience), a distinction appears between “what is experienced” and a supposed “external world” that causes it. This is basically the hard problem in a nutshell – the nature of experience is such that it can’t yet be explained in terms of physics, it’s more like magic. In that sense there is an apparent duality that is yet to be resolved by science. I believe we might solve it someday, and explain how such a phenomenon can exists within the brain cells, and can even generate a sense of self awareness in those cells that are aware of this phenomenon, but we are still not there.

[Anton Rogachevski]

Dualism is essential to this framework because it requires us to see the world through two lenses at once, each valid within its own domain. From the perspective of the inferred, noumenal world, it is true that there exists a biological body, and that this body is the seat of consciousness. Yet phenomenologically, the body is not a thing in itself but an experience, and alongside it there exists only the idea of “body” and the idea of “consciousness.” Physically, it is true that the body is mortal and will one day die. Phenomenologically, however, “death” and “birth” are themselves ideas, while the body remains only one element within the broader field of experience, never the whole of it.

This illustrates the gap between physical facts and experiential appearances. Noumenally, no experience could arise without a body; phenomenologically, experience is boundless, and the body plays only a minor role within it. Seen this way, experience proves to be an unreliable guide to physical reality. It carries a mystical quality, for the experiencer encounters everything as mysterious.

From this ground we must begin: our only genuine access to the world is inferential, drawn from within an enigmatic field of experience that can never be fully studied from the outside, objectively. Such a situation should instill a deep humility in all claims to knowledge.

[Anton Rogachevski]

I'm very excited to present an official edition of the essay, though I'm sure I'll keep working and refining it even further, it's pretty solid as it is. Enjoy, and I would love to hear your thoughts on how to improve it further!

Edited September 5 by Anton Rogachevski

[UnbornTao]

Love the photo above, haha. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@UnbornTao

Yep so accurate 🤣