Thoughts on the Theory of Ontomodality (wip name)

[Cred]

If you just want to quickly know weather this theory is useless bullshit or not, I suggest you jump to "Structures and phenomenons through the ontomodal lens" below.

Initially, i wanted to get my threory to a point where it is free of inconsistencies, holes etc. before posting. What i’ve now realized, is that getting to this point might take a very long time. The problem with this is, that witholding my thoughts about the theory just has the effect, that everyone on this forum who is ready to seriously consider it (@oOo @Joshe, etc.) is denied the possibility to already start to properly contemplate it. So this is why I’m posting all of my unfinished notes.

Last night I think I’ve discovered three more modes: will/creativity-sensitive (Schopenhauer has entered the chat. This might be where passion orientation comes from), whole/ holism-sensitive (Leo, Ken Wilber, Schlegel? wip name: holoconic) and beauty/aestetics-sensitive.

(Random insight: self-harm behaviour is a symptom of modally disaligned beings who engage in the phenoendonic, will sensitive modes of existence in order to feel like they exist again. (through affirming (free) will and subjective experience). See how practical it is?)

Edit: I think I found another one: Openness. Beings who are open love the unexpected and the suprise. They are the comedians. They don't care if what they think is objectively or socially or symbolically true, because for them only the absurd is true. (Rings some bells?). Their metaphysics is: Reality is a suprise. Reality is absurdity. Reality is contradiction. Reality is paradox. So it seems the strange loop, etc. is again just another mode of existence. (I'm not downplaying). This means, that "reality is logical and orderly" (hyloexonic) and "reality is paradox" are both valid lenses.

Naming and Integrating those into my notes would just cause me to stall sharing my thoughts again.

This model seems to be an extension of spinozas metaphysics, which is encouraging, since spinoza was based af.

I'm struggeling to describe this model neutrally, because a lot of language has ontomodal biases. For example I realized that "a being engages in a mode of self" has a will-sensitive bias. "Embody" has a hyloexogenic bias. So its tough. But also exiting. Also the word "sensitive" has a phenoendonic bias lol. I think this explains the batshit insane language philosophers of ontology invent. I might have to do the same.

UNFINISHED NOTES

I invented ontomodal theory of the absolute, ontomodal mind theory, ontomodal throry of substance (OMM) on February 2nd. It is currently in its infancy and all of the terms are not fixed yet.

OMM is a unifying theory that bridges the gaps between the natural sciences, humanties, theoretical philosophy, ontology and spirituality. (Before gta 6)

It seems to be the crown jewel of all tools regarding self-actualization. It is the fundemental reason why self-actualization is so multidisciplinary and why supposedly niche subjects like ontology play such a big role in it.

What is OMM?

Since I want this to be a legit ontological theory, the beginning will be painfully abstract like every good ontological theory. However this model is extremely practical and really shines with examples and I have a ton prepared (they are further down). So just hang in there…

OMM claims, that emptiness (sunyata), existence, non-existance (all three: emexnex) are arising from three modes of consciousness: 
- Hyloexonic, existence stems from object engagement (in simple terms: Object=Love)
- Phenoendonic, existence stems from subject engagement (in simple terms: Subject=Love)
- Semiosynconic, existence stems from symbolic engagement (in simple terms: Symbol=Love)

This means, that for any entity, it’s state of emexnex can be explained with the three modes on consciousness. These modes are genetically encoded in every human with different prevalences. 

The rest of the terms
- Ahyloexonic, non-existence stems from object engagement (in simple terms: Object=unhappy)
- Aphenoendonic, non-existence stems from subject engagement (in simple terms: Subject=unhappy)
- Asemiosynconic, non-existence stems from symbolic engagement (in simple terms: Symbol=unhappy)

- unimodal, refers to “only one mode”
- bimodal, refers to “only two modes”
- Omnimodal, refers to “all three modes”

- modally aligned being: being that is affirming of it’s ontomodal profile
- modally disaligned being: being, that is not affirming of it’s ontomodal profile

According to OMN, the fundamental purpose of self-actualization and also of the universe, is to increase modal alignment. There seems to be no other valid definition of the term "purpose". (This sentence is itself written from a semiosynconic perspective)

-------

Strict Definitions (?)

- Hyloexonic, mode of reality that is object affirming
- Phenoendonic, mode of reality that is subject affirming
- Semiosynconic, mode of reality that is symbol affirming 

quick and sloppy explaination of the names: 

• hylo=matter, exo=external
• Pheno=phenomenon, sensation, endo=internal
• semio=symbol, syn=together, con=icon (semio and icon might be a bit redundant but it sounds better than semiosynic and it is convenient that all of them end with "onic" and have similar stress patterns (? tf I'm new to inventing words so I might be talking shit. Is kinda fun though))

Random insights

- Dead matter is empty

- existence is the base for love, non-exisence is the base for fear.

Are you ready to torture your brain?

• An entity that engages in non-emptiness is a being.
• Out of the engagement in non-emptiness, engagement in existance and in non-existance arise The genetic code define the ontomodal profile of the being.
• A being that exists is a self and a being that is non-existent is a no-self.
• The more unimodally aligned the being, the more empty, existent and the less non-existent it is.
• The more unimodally disaligned the being, the more empty and non-existent it is, but the less existent it is.
• The more polymodally aligned the being, the more existent it is but the less empty and less non-existent it is.
• The more polymodally disaligned the being, the more non-existent it is and the less empty and existent it is.

It seems like the words positiv, good, etc trace back to ontomodal alignment and the words negative, bad etc trace back to ontomodal disalignment (?)
-------

Structures and phenomenons through the ontomodal lens

(old names, since “noetics” carries a phenoendonic bias. The new names are above under “strict definitions”. Btw, realize that this theory is the ultimate anti-bias tool?)

The ontomodal theory of the absolute is a powerhouse for explaining different facets of all sorts of structures. 
An overview: 

• Hylonoetics tend to care about something is *
• Phenonoetics tend to care about what something feels like
• Semionoetics tend to care about what something means

Below are a couple of examples.

*objectively not ontologically. In future when I'm talking about ontomodality, I will try to use "is" as the ontological is and "is objectively" as the hyloexonic is. This leads to an interestinf insight: Every being of each mode has different interpretations of the word "is", which makes sense, because each have diffenent notions of being.

God

• Hylonoetic: What is god? Theology: God is an object seperate from me that I can analyze and debate. There exist statements that are true about god and and statements that are false about god. There exists a proof of gods existence. I can philosophize about God.
• pheno-hylonoetic: What is god experience? Mysticism: God lies in experience. This experience is definable and archievable through systematic analyzing, practice and contemplation.
• phenonoetic: How does God feel like? Spirituality: God is inside of me but inpersonal. God is experience. I can find them in my subjective experience when I’m meditating.
• Semionoetic: What does God mean? Belief: God is telling me which social rules to submit to. God is defining what I am. I connect with people over my beliefs. I can never question my beliefs since my beliefs are my existence so questioning would equate to suicide. I’m okay with this. I gain enourmous pleasure from my beliefs and my confidence in them. I know that my beliefs are real since the people close to me have the same beliefs. This is how I define the word real. It is pysically impossible to me to consider any other definiton.
• hylo-semionoetic: How can the symbol god reach as many people as possible? Religious institutionalism:God is a container for social symbols/rules and I can systematically build or help organize social groups and institutions to promote them.
• pheno-semionoetic: What does my personal god make me feel? Bhakti Yoga: I have a deep personal relationship with god. They guide me like a loving parent. They make me feel fuzzy feelings in my body. God is love.

Yes you red that right I just used OMN to reverse engineer most of religion lol

Metaphysics

• Hylonoetic: What is reality (made of)? Materialism: Me and reality is object.
• Pheno-Hylonoetic: What is reality from the subjective standpoint? Idealism. I’m analyzing my mind through the subjective lens and conclude my mind is reality.
• Phenonoetic: How do I feel about reality? Phenomenology. I’m just looking at my raw experience and conclude experience is reality.
• Semionoetic: What does reality mean? Mythology. I’m listening to people around me and read stories that contain symbolism and conclude whatever they are talking about is reality.

Socializing

• Hylonoetic: I like to exchange information with other people. I don’t see them as people, because the term “person” implies that an entity has some symbolic meaning and I can’t grasp that. I tend to analyze social structures as if they were objective and fail bc they are symbolic, not objective. Since we are both object and there is no existance outside of object, to me, we are one.
• Phenonoetic: When I’m in the presence of someone, it is impossible for me not to empathize with this person. I don’t see them as people but as feeling entities. There is no difference between what I feel and what they feel and because for me there is no existence outside of feeling, to me, we are one. When someone in my pesence is angry at me or doesn’t like me, It feels to me like dying.
• Semionoetic: “I love to socialize with other people” is an understatement. Without socializing, I don’t exist. I physically cannot grasp the possibility that I could exist independent of other symbolic beings, since there is no meaning independent of other meanings. When I socialize with other semionoetics, the main objective is always that we are both affirming that we exist symbolically (in the semiotic matrix). Since there is no existance outside of symbol, to me, we are one. Asemionoetic people confuse me and make me angry. When I’m talking to them they behave so asymbolic towards me that I don’t know who I am anymore. It is as if they don’t see me as a person and it’s sickening. I don’t get affirmed in my symbolic identity at all. Therefore spending time with them is like slowly commiting suicide. I avoid them like the plague. When someone in my close scoial circle is asemiotic, I suffer greatly.

Career

Family

Love

giftedness

Low intelligence

Political identity (PI) Example woman

• Hylonoetic: What IS this PI? Biology: What is a woman biolocially?
• Phenonoetic: What does PI feel like? Wokeness: How do woman feel in this society, how are they treated?
• Semionoetic: What does it mean to be PI? Tradition: How is a woman supposed to behave?

Hygiene (lol)

• Hylonoetic: I don’t care to shower, I just want to think. For me, redicule and the sense of smell of me and of others is not part of existence. Therefore it does not make sense to me to do hygiene.
• Phenonoetic: Hygiene is important to me bc I like to smell good and feel good. 
• Semionoetic: Hygiene is important to me bc I learned it from my parents through symbolic comunication.

Spiral dynamics

• Hylonoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage orange and stage yellow.
• Phenonoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage green and stage turquoise.
• Seminoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage purple and stage blue.

I definetly need a diagram at some point. Is someone here good with diagrams?😅

Personality disorders (experimental)

• objective-subjective-SP spectrum: I can’t develop borderline since my existance does not rely on my relationship with other people.
• Object-SP: When traumatized and with the right disposition, I delude myself and develop narcissism. Since my existence is based in objective truth, my delusions are far more extreme than for SBSPs since I have to affirm and rationalize them way more. If I’m gifted on top of that, I can be responsible to the biggest most intricate delusional systems, institutions, organizations, social groups, families that are completely unbelievable that they’re real.
• Object-SP/Subject-SP: Exact same as Object-SPs but I tend to build cults.
• SJSP: I can not develop Narcisissm....

-------

Examples

Examples of people (estimates)
* Leo Gura: Strong hylonoetic, moderate phenonoetic. Very low Semionoetic.
* Carl Jung: Textbook Omninoetic.
* Jordan Peterson: Strong hylo-semionoetic, very low phenonoetic.
* Oppressive CEO types (Jeff bezos, Trump, Elon musk, etc): Strong semio-hylonoetics. Very low phenonoetics.
* Mr Beast: Very strong hylonoetic, moderate semionoetic, low phenonoetic.

Careers

Fields of study

Random insights (extra messy)
- Everything that is not hylo-semionoetic is intuition.
- reason and logic are hylo-semionoetic.
- Zionism is extremely semionoetic
- Love: The word Love has a strong pheno-semiotic bias. However fundamentally, Love is the state of non seperatedness and pure existance. Therefore everything that is unoetic is love and everything that is binoetic or omninoetic is not. That also means that Love has "three flavours". This is why people who are dominant in different modes have fundamentally differen lovelanguages and in most cases, cannot possibly fall in love.
- Human. The more you mix the different modes of existance, the  less pure your existance becomes and with that, the more human you are. Here comes a banger get ready: 
- (Duality of) being (non-existence vs existence) is perpetuated by the conflics among the three unoetics and between the emptyness (sunyata) arising from unoetics and Duality of being
- Stangeloop detected! Existence is the duality of being and non being and being is the duality of existence and non existence
- noetic bliss (perfectlily modally aligned)
- Everything that exists arises out of the contradictions between the three modes of existence and existence itself. The closer you move towards unoetics, the closer you move towards non-existence and the further you move from unoetics the further you go towards existence.
- For semionoetic people, the things that very asemionoetic people do often seem meaningless. That's because for very asemionoetic people, meaning and purpose are not graspable modes of existence. This is why the special interests of hylonoetic people can seem so niche and meaningless at times. But they don't care. They are physically unable to worry about leading a meaningless life.
- The model does not assume a qualitative difference between 
    - life and death
    - Human, non-human lifforms and matter
- Existance is defined with noetic alignment which is completely seperate from the term "life" and non-existence is defined through noetic disalignment and is completely seperate from the term "death". The claim is there can be no definition of (non)existence outside of the noetic modes.
- The term "noetic disalignment" can be quated with the term "human". Notice that with that definition, zooanimals are more human than tribespeople
- for a pure hyloexonic person, mind and tribe does not exist, only matter. For a pure phenoendonic person, only mind exist and matter, tribe do not. For a purely semiosynconic person, …
- Jordan Peterson is not afraid of stage green bc he is stupid. He is afraid bc he is not phenoendonic enough

———

Different archetypes explained through the Omnimodal neotics Model (keep in mind a lot of this is experimental since the model is in its infancy)

• * Non-Existence: If you are neither hylo- nor pheno- nor semioneotic, than you literally have never and will never exist. There is no existence outside of these three axes. They describe all possible modes of existance. "Existance" can only ever be defined in relation to them.
• * Matter: If you are maxxed out hyloneotic and nothing else than you are literal dead matter (that was never alife like a).
• * Dead person: (read this in a vibrato voice) The moment you die, you become 100% semio-hyloneotic. You only exist as a symbolic entity (soul) floating as a part of the world soul and as rotting matter. Your existence can partly be recovered, for example when a very speciallized tracker inspects your corpse, a shaman is reaching you by accessing the realm of the dead in the world soul or a tribalist could recover some of your semioneotic activity while you were alive through reenachment and conserve it, so you continue to live as a semioneotic fragment of culture, etc. (It was kinda spooky writing this but it lowkey makes total sense)
• * Enlightened Being: Enlightenment is pure existence. Each of the noetic modes interfere with the other which means that only an unoetic being (just one noetic mode) can reach permanent full enlightenment. (This is why you automatically drop out of enlightenment as soon as you use language bc it is hylo-semioneotic and therefore not pure). The three kinds of enlightenment are per definition at the same time one and the same (existance=existance) and also the most uncomparable modes of existance possible (hyloneotic existance≠phenonoetic existance≠semionoetic existance). If one is multipolar, the best way for an individual to archieve enlightenment is by suppressing the weakest two modes. However this can only be temporary since every one of your noetic modes comes loaded with the need to engange in that mode of existance.
• * Animal: The animal kingdom has similar architypes and even similar prevalences of each modes as the human population but with less intelligence. This means there is no qualitative difference between a human and an animal.
• * Shaman: People who are extremely Pheno- and Semionoetic are the ones who are constantly dreaming of imagery and symbols. Even during daytime. They are the kinds of shamans who dream of prophecies and access the ralm of the dead. They are extremely in tune with their unconscious since it communicates through subtle phenomena and symbolism. (This explains my extreme lack of success in lucid dreaming, dream journaling, symbolic painting, etc. since I'm very Asemionoetic)
• * Cave Yogi: If you are extremely phenonoetic, then you are painfully conscious of god ALL THE TIME with no effort. You are unable to live a normal life. All you want is to go into a cave alone and admire god until you die a mahasamadhi. (You are the penguin heading towads the mountains)
• * Tribalist: If you are extremely semionoetic, you are completely one with your tribe. For you there is no you outside your tribe. This means you are enlightend but in a peculiar and interdependent way. For you there is no existance outside of loyalty, which means betraying or being abandoned by your tribe would be the exact same thing (worse actually) as dying for you and you can do literally nothing about that fact. You are also extremely sensitive and knowledgable of the precise identity and tradition of your tribe. You are tasked with conserving it's identity through enacting traditions and there is no one who could do it better than you. (I kinda feel a lot more hopeful and positive about conservatives after writing this)
• * Mystic: A Mystic is someone who is phenonoemic enough to grasp the significance of god, and they're desperately clenching for god counsciousness but their love for  hylo-semionoetic intellectualizing is always in the way to fully reach it. Their versatility is their downfall. Their highest life purpose is it to lead true unoetics the way to a treasure which they cannot posess.
• * (Aboriginal) Tracker: Language itself is semionoetic with elements of hyloneotics. Learning Language both requires understanding social symbols and hyloneotic pattern recognition. This explains why extremely autistic people (very asemioneotic) struggle with language even if they have great pattern recognition. So if they can't use language, what would an extremely asemio-, hyloneotic person be good at? I think if they are unintelligent they would feel most comfortable building simple repetitive things for example. Things like arrows. If they are intelligent, their pattern recognition would be off the charts and they would be able to  read a lot of information from land about the weather, fertility, game etc. I think they would excel at geoguessr for example. So if they can't think, then what is in their head? I think they literally walk around with a perfectly empty cup all the time but they are so Aphenonoetic that they still can't sense god even though they have the perfect conditions otherwise. However this still means they're enlightened but just more in the way a rock is enlightened than a guru.
• * Capitalist: If you are extremely hylo-semiotic, than you thrive by creating and organizing social structures like institutions etc. A company with it’s logo and organization of workforce is a text-book example for an extremely hylo-semiotic structure. Notice that it is possible to build a company with zero phononoetic elements. If you are zero phenonoetic you are completely unaware of how you feel. When this is the case, you are dependent of a phenonoetic person in your life to monitor and nurture you. A company with zero phenonoetic elements almost certainly has horrendous working conditions.

Edited 6 hours ago by Cred