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.

Edit feb 4: Some insights about existence and emptiness in this post are outdated. Sunyata/ nirvana is Amodal/Transmodal can can not be archieved through any mode of existence. Any talk about unimodality being more enlightened or something is bullshit.

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. Edit feb 4th: Beauty is omnimodal I think. I called Will-existence Volonic and whole-existence Holonic

(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. Edit feb 4th: I called it Paraonic 

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 (edit feb 4: Sunyata arises from absence of any modes)
- 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.

(edit feb 4th all of this after "are you ready..." is outdated)

It seems like the words positive, 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 17 hours ago by Cred

[oOo]

@Cred Convergence remains the test (as outlined in the previous thread).

[aurum]

@Cred

It's certainly a unique way of trying to categorize people.

I just don't understand what the point of it is.

What unique explanatory power does your model have they we don't already have?

[Cred]

19 hours ago, aurum said:

What unique explanatory power does your model have they we don't already have?

One of the biggest Insights so far is that ontomodality poses that there exist independent modes of being and that beings with different ontomodal profiles can disalign each other, leading to conflict. It can really precisely explain "incompatibility" between two people but also between any entities or structures that should interact with each other. It also helps analyze when a conflict is existential in nature or just a matter of misunderstanding.

For example, if you have a fight with your spouse, ontomodality helps you to know if it is physically possible for you two to work on resolve or if it is hopeless.

 

[Cred]

Quick update and overview:

I have changed the names once again to make them shorter and more fitting. Also, I came up with names for the new ones.

Modes

• Taxonic (order, object, matter, external, autism) Old: Hyloexonic
• Animonic (spirit, psyche, emotion, fantasy, senses, internal, HSP) Old: Phenoendonic
• Semionic (symbol, conformity, meaning, story, identity, social, togetherness) Old: Semiosynconic
• Holonic (whole, holistic, interconnected, big picture thinking, dyslexia)
• Volonic (will, power, action, movement, passion orientation)
• Paraonic (chaos, absurdity, surprise, comedy, paradox, openness, contradiction, novelty)
• Geonic (alien, beyond human grasp)

I scrapped aesthetic being since beauty is a symptom of modal alignment, not a seperate mode (in my conception).

Radom insights

• Creativity is Paravolonic: Action out of openness, leading to something unexpected and novel.
• I think schizotypy might be Animaparaonic

Other

• Amodal (Sunyata)
• Transmodal (nirvana, transcendence, enlightenment)
• Modally aligned (love, fulfilled, existence, self, flow, beauty)
• Modally disaligned (fear, emptiness*, non-existence, no-self, depletion)
• Omnimodal, something with all modes

*not sunyata, used as opposite of fulfilled. I plan to never use the word "empty" for sunyata I think.

Edited 15 hours ago by Cred

[aurum]

57 minutes ago, Cred said:

One of the biggest Insights so far is that ontomodality poses that there exist independent modes of being and that beings with different ontomodal profiles can disalign each other, leading to conflict. It can really precisely explain "incompatibility" between two people but also between any entities or structures that should interact with each other. It also helps analyze when a conflict is existential in nature or just a matter of misunderstanding.

For example, if you have a fight with your spouse, ontomodality helps you to know if it is physically possible for you two to work on resolve or if it is hopeless.

 

Okay but why is it superior to other relational models?

You can model reality in a trillion different ways. Why should I use your framework for analyzing a fight with my spouse over other frameworks?

[Cred]

I don't know if it is superior, but I think it's cool that it is rooted in ontology.

I think it would be useful if you gave me an example for a relational model that you think is more powerful. Or just some relational model to compare it to.

Edited 19 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

21 hours ago, oOo said:

@Cred Convergence remains the test (as outlined in the previous thread).

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Do you use "convergence" the way I use "modal alignment"?

Even then, I don't know what you mean

Edited 19 hours ago by Cred

[UnbornTao]

@Cred You are prolific.

[yetineti]

These models are fun but if you ultimately craft this, it’s going to distort your interpretation of the world.

[Cred]

51 minutes ago, yetineti said:

These models are fun but if you ultimately craft this, it’s going to distort your interpretation of the world.

Not having a map aka an ordering of the world means emptiness, no-self, non-existence, fear for me as a taxonic. That's why I am here. And this okay. There is nothing I can do about it. For example I can't just throw out all theories and be pure spirit all the time since I am not unimodally animonic enough.

When you say "a model distorts", you pose, that experience is more real than a concept. But that is like saying animonic existence is more real than semiotaxonic existence (which might be true for your ontomodal profile). 

What I'm saying is that you need to be careful when you attach value to different modes of existence. I'm not saying that you shouldn't rank them for yourself because that's exactly what you should do.

However don't just blindly accept someones ranking (by accepting "the map is not the territory" for example) because that ranking might cause you to ontomodally disalign.

Edit: I'm realizing the irony of answering this critique from the lense of the model. I think there is a deeper truth to your point but it is kinda hard to answer to this in a meta way when the model is not even fleshed out yet.

Edited 17 hours ago by Cred

[yetineti]

@Cred
 

It slightly even more ironic.

Your model is almost like the psychology ‘models of models.’

The model acknowledges different modes of being, some modes being a mode of modeling itself.

Modeling is inherently indirect, yet the better the model—the more direct.

So, if you are modeling a model of direct experience • mode of modeling • etc.

Just those two modes inherently describe the irony.

You cannot experience the mode of modeling through any mode but the mode of experience. It is definitionally impossible/logically incongruent.

 

[Cred]

@yetinetiThanks a lot for the great reply! You really gave me something to think about.

You are on the right track, but you are not seeing the full depth of the model yet (neither am I lol). But you are doing very good.

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

Your model is almost like the psychology ‘models of models.’

The model is more than just the psychology 'model of models'. It is the ontology 'model of models'. (Hopefully at least lol)

Your critique assumes that we are still in psychology land, but that's not the case.

This is also important for @oOo to understand.

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

You cannot experience the mode of modeling through any mode but the mode of experience. It is definitionally impossible/logically incongruent.

Read this very carefully: 

According to ontomodality, experience is just the animonic mode of existence, embodying is the texonic mode of existence and personifying is the semionic mode of existence.

(Transcendence is the transmodal version of "existence" and "Existence" itself is amodal. I guess. I just came up with this lol. Another comment: Transmodal is a mode of being and amodal is a mode of entity. That kinda makes sense. I still need to properly define and differentiate being from entity.)

When you say: "You cannot experience the mode of modeling" you are completely right, since modeling is not animonic.

But what you are wrongly implying, and this is because you think this is still a psychology theory, is that "experience" is a more fundamental mode of existence than "embodying" (remember: Is taxonic) or "personifying" (remember: Is semionic). (remember: These two are important, since modeling is semiotaxonic.) Which is the case from the psychology lens as the name of the field implies.

What this mean is when I try to experience a model, I will fail and feel empty/non-existent. However I can personify-embody it, which is from an ontological (again, not from a psychological standpoint I agree with you there) standpoint just as much a valid mode of existence as experiencing.

Be careful now to say "experiencing is still the best mode of existence". Again, this might be true if you are very animonic. However my model predicts, that if somebody has a very non-animonic modal profile, they are extremely insensitive to experience. Have you ever seen people engaging in very self-destructive behavior that is unimaginable to you? This is because they might be very non-animonic.

If you understand this, you will realize that your previous conception of reality was actually more distorted than after you learned about ontomodality.

Edited 15 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

While we are at it, let's try to find some more of the different modes of the term existence

• Taxomic existence: Embodying
• Animonic existence: Experiencing, feeling, sensing
• Semionic existence: Personifying, meaning, symbolizing
• Holonic existence: Interacting
• Volonic existence: Acting
• Paraonic existence: Parodying, satirizing

Notice that all of these can be investigated with contemplation, not just experience. I think my model might make contemplation a lot more powerful.

bimodal

• Parataxonic:
  • Anticipating (?) (requires openness. Also, Prediction is pattern recognition) also
  • criticizing (if you are criticising and not just satirizing, you are implying a better order which is taxonic)
• Moving: Volotaxonic (physical and willed)
• Talking: semiotaxonic (language requires symbols and patterns)
• Socializing: Holosemionic (Interacting in a symbolic context)
• Cuteness, eros: Voloanimonic (both cuteness and sexual attraction are subjective feelings with a strong willed aspect. I want to have sex, I want to protect/squeeze the cute being)

There is a lot more but I'm tired

Edited 5 hours ago by Cred

[oOo]

 

@Cred no problem, I’ll answer this in the only way that pulls the blanket off the polish.

When I say convergence, I’m not trying to rename your “modal alignment.” I’m pointing at how a normal phenomenon (“people have different reality orientations”, “one reality orientation is a truth sensitive person (TSP)”) that becomes invisible the moment we create a new zoo with different labels on the species and the zoo itself. Like it gets weird real fast when we call a zoo a strip club and then start naming the animals “Alan the barbarian bear gonna take your lady for some mud slummin”, “Sandy the lioness who’s got claws that’ll tear yo back out!”; the labels can look fancier but they’re still a bear and a lioness inside a standard zoo. But that’s just my sense humour relating a point. My convergence test is about going through the cool process of determining what is real, false through the balance of what makes blind through emotion vs what builds clarity through your steely intellect. 

One adage that applies here “Different roads can lead to the same destination.” And if that’s true, then the destination is not a “species”. It’s a place minds tend to end up under certain conditions. Not “everyone is unique.” Not “everyone has their own world.” That’s true but trivial. Convergence is the opposite claim. The same kind of “world-feel” repeats across different people, even when the wiring story underneath is not the same.

Two people walk into the same room and both react like the room is “cold.” They both put on a jacket. The outcome looks identical. But one person is cold because the heater is broken, the other is cold because they’re sick, the third is cold because they’re exhausted, the fourth is cold because they haven’t eaten. Same jacket. Different reasons. Now apply that to mind-styles. You can get a “truth-heavy” orientation through one route (genetics), or through another (development), or through another (social fatigue from masking), or through another (trauma), or through another (chemical / psychedelic re-tuning), and the surface pattern can rhyme hard. To the observer it looks like “ah, same mode!”, though the cause underneath isn’t one essence, it’s multiple routes landing on the same stable habit of being.

So convergence is basically a pressure-test for your labels:

* If your “mode” is a kind of being, it should have a fairly tight origin story.

* If your “mode” is an outcome pattern, it can be reached by many routes.

And if it’s the second one (which is what convergence suggests), then the theory shifts shape, modes stop acting like fixed species and start acting like recurring solutions. Ways minds settle into what keeps them steady, functional, protected, rewarded, coherent.

That’s also why I poked at the “0%” thing. Because if rerouting is real, then “0% access”, and analogous leaps can easily be a snapshot mistaken for a law. Intuition and brainstorming should lead the way, too much though and like an overcrowded room the VIP guests you nailed down, as in the top tier guests you actually managed to get to your party like a great idea you have for your theory, suddenly either gets squeezed outta the room, is much harder to see or you’re now no longer building on its foundational essence “because look, a new shiny thing!”. 

So no, I’m not translating convergence into modal alignment. I’m saying, before we crown a label, ask whether we’re naming an essence… or naming a recurring outcome that many different engines can produce.

 

Now the split you’re missing (and the one your model needs if it wants to actually break early rather than cosmetically):

1) Routing-convergence (factory routing)

This is the baseline road, aka the “default track” that shows up early, repeats across time, and tends to feel like “this is just me.”

Some people are born with a bias toward precision, some toward people, some toward symbols, some toward synthesis others toward athletics. Whatever you want to call it, the point is, the route was laid down early, and life mostly rides its genetic momentum. If your modes are real as kinds, you’d expect a lot of this, so early onset, stable patterning, predictable tradeoffs. That’s routing-convergence. Many individuals, similar starting roads, similar destinations.

2) Re-routing-convergence (detour becomes highwa

Aka a mind can be pushed into a similar destination without starting there. Medicine makes this obvious because it’s shamelessly causal.

Examples where re-routing produces “new you” patterns that look like a mode.

* Stroke: language and social signalling can shift overnight; people rebuild through new workarounds.

* TBI / concussion: impulse control, irritability, empathy, risk-taking can change. Same person, different constraints.

* Temporal lobe epilepsy (and meds): mood, cognitive texture, even spiritual flavour can swing. (Ask me how I know.)

* Parkinson’s + dopamine drugs: compulsions can appear that look like “character” until you change the dose.

* Thyroid extremes / steroids / sleep debt: dramatic shifts in drive, agitation, sensitivity.

* Rehab + training: the slow version of re-routing - therapy, meditation, skill practice, exposure, conditioning—where a detour gets reinforced until it becomes the main road.

 

And then we have interesting re-case studies to seemingly radically ‘positive’ outcomes through training, injury and creative adaptation.

* David Goggins (I brought him up earlier along with Mc Donald’s Fatso thats strangely enough not a diabetic!) - extreme endurance + self-forced psychological re-routing, identity rebuilt through sustained voluntary suffering, pain-tolerance training, and relentless self-conditioning (a “detour” that becomes the highway).

* Rudiger Gamm - unusually high mental calculation ability (often described as “human calculator”). An example of strong routing-convergence (early, stable baseline tendency) rather than a sudden re-route.

* Acquired savant syndrome (after brain injury / stroke / dementia) - rare cases where head trauma or neurological disease is followed by “miraculous” emergent abilities (math, music, art). Classic example is Jason Padgett (TBI ~> intense geometric/visual-math perception). Re-routing-convergence ~~> new destination via damaged circuitry + compensation.

* Blind echolocation kid/young man (human echolocation) - Ben Underwood (blind from early childhood; mastered echolocation clicks to navigate like sonar; later died). Example of training-driven re-routing: sensory substitution becomes functional perception.

 

So here’s the zoo keepers punchline, even the strange stripper dude that made it popular in some weird country:

If the same “mode-like” destination can be reached via routing or re-routing, then your labels are describing recurring outcomes, not irreducible essences, and that’s where the knife cuts the bread, are you putting butter on their as a spread of labels or is the butter actually there. This is the more difficult conversation from ideation to integration though Ched that I totally sympathise with mate, it can get super difficult real quick heh. But this is where at the very least, theoretical testability comes into play.

So when I say convergence is the test, I mean, show me whether your categories track kinds of beings…or kinds of destinations that different beings can arrive at for different reasons. We already know people on the ASD are on average more ‘truth aligned’, it’s in the outcome symptomology. However ‘truth alignment’ can happen for many different reasons, its not moral superiority in many instances, it’s an absence of cognitive empathy plus the rerouting that occurs following a lifetime of making meaning through the world of immediate sensitivity over the metaphorical lives that by comparison the ‘normies’ traverse more of. And just to swing 360 degrees back to neurodivergence, a TSP here is in the meat of the word itself, people converge towards the same of TSP for completely neurodivergent reasons compared to one another. All or none can hypothetically be a survival reason, all of none can be a purely spiritual reason, and we could have ten paths for each, where another ten relate to genetics overlap.

Imagine two cities that look identical from above. Same streets, same lights, same skyline silhouette. One was planned by a central architect, the other emerged from a thousand local constraints, accidents, hacks, black markets and war-time reroutes. From the helicopter, you’d swear they’re the same city, however if you try to repair the plumbing, one needs a blueprint and the other needs a historian; same outcome, different generative story. That’s convergence. It’s not “everyone has a unique world.” It’s almost the opposite, many people share surprisingly similar worlds, just for radically different reasons. If it’s destinations (and medicine screams that it is), then the “bigger picture” isn’t threatened by details, it depends on them. Because otherwise you’ll keep naming skylines while ignoring the roads that built the city.

[oOo]

@Cred and to briefly add to my reply directly above, here are some “directions for engagement” in this space:

Go for it man, genuinely. New frameworks are good for the forum, and I said that in the other thread without irony.

That said, when you quote me, I’m going to engage at the level of how the engine actually runs. I don’t make statements as edge-play or aesthetics; I make them because they’re load-bearing for the theory, in my mind it’s a simple “what is the causal framework, where does it breakdown vs where does it work and how can we tweak for higher speeds and softer breaks?”. So when you engage me, I expect the question or constraint itself to be addressed. If that doesn’t happen, I’ll just switch off and move on, no drama. My request is you say that outright rather than dragging it out so that I can continue to entertain rather than actually engage with the real physics of something which is what I enjoy doing.

As an observation, what I’m seeing so far is a tendency toward linguistic pattern-completion rather than mechanical pressure-testing. The framework is expanding via vocabulary accretion, clusters of terms with shared suffixes (-ionic, -onic, -exonic, -synconic, -taxonic, -animonic, -semionic…), which gives internal symmetry, but doesn’t yet answer how or why one configuration stabilizes over another. Right now, it just feels like you’re getting massive sweeps of dopamine, it’s generating an addictive loop, which feeds the fog. And there’s nothing wrong with that just don’t use them as imaginary swords against things I am saying which has physics to it.

That’s where my convergence critique comes in. It isn’t stylistic, and it isn’t psychological. Very simple. It’s a stress test. That pressure keeps getting reframed rather than met with your own deeper critique, which is why it feels like the model is growing lexically instead of being forced to break under the pressure you’re asking the forum for.

I’m still engaging in good faith. That engagement though, for me, means answering the constraint, not routing around it.

 

Edited 14 hours ago by oOo

[Joseph Maynor]

On 2/3/2026 at 5:31 AM, Cred said:

Initially, i wanted to get my theory 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. 

Examine this starting point.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Examine this starting point.

I agree. I would proceed to gut out all inconsistencies 'not that'. Negate.

[Cred]

@Natasha Tori Maru @Joseph Maynor I don't understand what you are trying to say. Keep in mind, I'm not a native speaker (this also goes for @oOo but your replies are becoming easier to read so thank you)

If it is "don't post until it is fleshed out" I say I'm happy with how it is now. I have people challenge my ideas and help bring me forward.

I'm totally aware that most people who are interested here want to read the finished product. This is the plan, to one day make a post where I present the complete Theory. You people just have to be paitent then.

I think that the notes are of sufficient quality for this forum even if they are unpolished.

Edited 5 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

9 hours ago, oOo said:

I expect the question or constraint itself to be addressed. If that doesn’t happen, I’ll just switch off and move on, no drama.

I totally get this. The reason why I haven't given you a proper answer yet is because I'm still pondering.

Thanks a lot for the engagement!