Thoughts on the Theory of Ontomodality (wip name)

[UnbornTao]

@Cred Also, are you using AI to write your posts? If so, ease up on that and disclose it when you do. Just a heads-up.

[Cred]

@oOo I agree with most of what you're saying. But it seems like there are some misunderstandings. (Also I have realized some of these issues myself and fixed them by now)

The most important thing to realize is that ontomodality is not a psychology model anymore. So when you say "what your model describes is just a manifestation of physical reality" then I say, physical reality is just a manifestation of what my model describes (both statements are true depending on the lens). The reason why you believe that physical reality is the source of every structure is because it's true for you.

It is important to note that I'm not saying you're deluded, that you have to see it like me and that your observations are not relevant, which they are since I want my model to be true regardless of the lens. So I'm encouraging you to keep critiquing ontomodality from the holotaxonic perspective.

The Problem with essence

When I'm using the word existence, I don't mean essence. My model does not pose there is existence outside the now. It seems to be a blend of ontology and phenomenology: While ontology asks "what exists" and phenomenology asks "how is reality appearing in the now" while ignoring existence (epoché), my model seems to ask how existence itself appears in the now. Since I'm not a formally educated philosopher, I don't know if this is novel or even makes sense from the academic perspective, but I am planning to figure it out.

I hope you can see now that my methodology is entirely different from that of a medical student.

The problem with stability

I completely moved away from the claim that it is inherently special, how I chose the different modes. I think it's cool that the ones that I chose each point to some unique existing metaphysical theory (which makes analyzing them a lot easier). I also moved away from the claim, that unimodality is somehow more stable or better or more enlightened than polymodality for that reason.

I look at ontomodality from the perspective of linear algebra.

First a simple example to make it easier for people who are rusty on linear algebra:

If you want three directions (that are invertible) to traverse all 3d space, all you need to ensure, is that they don't lie on a plane, since then you can only traverse the 2d space of that plane. This means they need to be linearly independent.

The big metaphysical idea the model is based upon, is that human existence can be described by something like an N-dimensional vector space. (I don't know what N is. It might very well not be 6). What linear algebra now tells us, is that it does not matter which N vectors you choose, as long as they're linearly independent. Because if they are, you will still be able to span the entire N-dimensional vector space with them. (It is important to note that linear algebra show up in a lot of places)

So my approach is to keep searching for more modes that are orthogonal to the rest of them to increase the number of dimensions, my basismodes are spanning.

For example If I would throw "language sensitive" in the mix, it would not expand the current vector space with one additional dimension, since language is semiotaxonic. This means that taxonic, semionic and language-mode (Logonic or whatever) are not linearly independent. And the Loginic mode can be archieved through the mix of the Semionic and Taxonic modes.

Now, the most elegant way to do this is to normalize them (make them equal (to one)) and to make them orthogonal (this would make them "orthonormal basis vectors"). Now applied to the model, this means that each of the modes "should not have any component of each of the other modes" and that they should all have equal emphasis. 

This is why this is such a language game (and yes, it also happens to be a lot of fun). My theory is that we already have a set of vectors that span the vector space of human existence, which is the set of all words that have ever been invented but that the number N is much smaller than the number of all words because they are not all orthogonal to each other, obviously.

Interestingly, this is similar to how word embedding works in large language models. Without learning about LLMs, these insights would have not been inaccessible to me. 

My goal is to investigate this space and find at least one elegant enough way to span those N dimensions. (I need to find a cooler name for that number like O/Ω) 

Some questions are still open:

• Does this even make any sense to bring linear algebra into this
• How do you prove that the modes are linearly independent
• How do you normalize/equalize the modes

Here is a short by 3blue1brown that might clear up the idea of viewing language as a vector space:

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

@Cred Also, are you using AI to write your posts? If so, ease up on that and disclose it when you do. Just a heads-up.

No, I'm not using AI for writing and when I do, I will disclose it. (Yes, my hands indeed hurt from all the typing)

The reason how I can be so productive is because I currently invest all my energy into this. This also functions as an experiment on ontomodal alignment.

[UnbornTao]

14 minutes ago, Cred said:

No, I'm not using AI for writing and when I do, I will disclose it. (Yes, my hands indeed hurt from all the typing)

The reason how I can be so productive is because I currently invest all my energy into this. This also functions as an experiment on ontomodal alignment.

Got it.

[oOo]

@Cred I’m not persuaded you’ve engaged with my points deeply enough yet to warrant further response. The convergence constraint remains unanswered. If I weren’t tied up with other people’s work I’d engage more, but that’s the crunch point. I genuinely wish you well with the project.

[oOo]

@Cred this will be my last response to finalise my comment directly above.

I write the following purely for your self-education. 

In an online space it can be so easy to project sometimes, and so I have composed some questions and statements for you to consider concerning. 

My statements are based on evidence based patterns I have noted in your writing in your reference to me, that are quotable and can therefore be referred to.  Nothing else sneaks into my evaluation. 

Again sincerely, take care Cred. And again, I am done here now. Irrespectively, the encouragement is still behind my words to move onwards and upwards in your journey concerning. You remind me of aspects of myself especially when I was younger and less experienced.

 

2 hours ago, Cred said:

 there are some misunderstandings. 
 

I never expressed nor have I shown any misunderstanding. This is projection number one. I raised a point that went unanswered Cred.

Quote

The reason why you believe that physical reality is the source of every structure is because it's true for you.

I never made this claim, and I never denounced it. 

Quote

It is important to note that I'm not saying you're deluded.

What went on in your mind the moment you chose this word ‘deluded’ in this context? I genuinely find this intriguing, and let me preface this with the fact that I am extremely hard to offend.

What with even the slightest remote detail was ever indicative of any kind of delusion to warrant the selection even by comparison?

My words are clear, precise and well resourced with clear reasoning around the sources I provided outside some minor grammar and perhaps for my standards, a little too elongated however it was becsuse I couldn’t get through to you the first few times. But even my elongated response outputted a nil result on moving the needle of understanding there.
 

2 hours ago, Cred said:

@oOo I agree with most of what you're saying. 

If you agreed why didn’t you address my critique with even a single word despite pages of text?
 

Quote

The most important thing to realize is that ontomodality is not a psychology model anymore.

It depends on psychological primitives. So your statement is inaccurate, and so far aspirational at best relative to the actual literature. Hypothesising, theorisation and abstraction is a lot of fun, however when I am conversing with others, I try to be as strict as possible with myself and where it matters in a social context outside of biting my tongue for politeness, others.
 

Quote

So when you say "what your model describes is just a manifestation of physical reality"

Interesting. The pattern of projection has firmly set in now right? It’s okay, I just need to make sure the pattern is now very visible. Stay with me.

Quote

So I'm encouraging you to keep critiquing ontomodality from the holotaxonic perspective.

Holotaxonic is a your own vocabulary, correct? How is a person meant to critique from the ‘Holotaxonic perspective’ when you haven’t yet built the system for them to do that? 

Quote

I hope you can see now that my methodology is entirely different from that of a medical student.

In what way? What assumptions do you believe you may be making about medical students? What percentage chance is there that all medical students are the same or even that, all medical schools are? 

Also, in what ways do you believe your own methodology may be better or worse compared to what you believe a medical student follows? Could you improve a medical students approach? 

Phenomenology and ontological study are uniquely very important to my own personal growth, with a subset to that importance overlapping with my growth as a student of not just medicine, but at the seat of its interconnection with all of life.

By the way Cred, I checked out that video you linked. Interesting stuff. Small correction on the video though. It isn’t showing pre-existing axes being discovered mate, it shows axes emerging from accumulated usage. The structure comes from convergence, a pattern I have been asking you to use as a questioning tool over and over now, not from ontologically prior directions. Read that way, it actually undermines irreducible modes rather than supports them.

Keep the fire alive though brother, I don’t want to be someone that takes away that inspiration, you gotta keep life’s fire soaring as high as possible. We have many people struggling on this problem, you staying motivated despite some basic set backs that you can overcome is infectious for others, just learn to be more mindful regarding projection thats all, it’s okay we’re human and we’re all growin.

Again, best wishes, sincerely. I’m out now.

[yetineti]

It’s going to blow your mind when you realize there’s only one mode of anything lol.

[Cred]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

It’s going to blow your mind when you realize there’s only one mode of anything lol.

Yes, this is exactly right. There is fundamentally just one mode, which is existence, and I am trying to describe all its (hopefully linear) manifestations, and it's transcendence in human experience.

When you say, this one mode is experience, then I say you are on a great track to understand ontomodality because it seems you value contemplation. What you need to realize is that experience can not be the most fundamental mode, since it assumes a subject, while "existence" doesn't.

Contemplation can become way more powerful when you use ontomodality to gain the ability to suspend assumptions about the subject or theories about psychological primitives or whatever.

At the end, to reach transmodality, you, of course, also have to suspend all knowledge about ontomodality. But it might be the last steppingstone to reach it for a semiotaxonic person.

Edited 2 hours ago by Cred

[Joseph Maynor]

4 hours ago, Cred said:

The most important thing to realize is that ontomodality is not a psychology model anymore. So when you say "what your model describes is just a manifestation of physical reality" then I say, physical reality is just a manifestation of what my model describes.  

This is called a metaphysic in philosophy.

[Cred]

exactly

[Joseph Maynor]

6 minutes ago, Cred said:

exactly

This sentence right here is the metaphysical project expressed nicely and succinctly: "physical reality is just a manifestation of what my model describes."  

I can state it more abstractly and provocatively as The Metaphysics Project.  This will cause the philosophers' heads to swivel, naturally.

Edited 2 hours ago by Joseph Maynor

[Cred]

3 hours ago, oOo said:

Again, best wishes, sincerely. I’m out now.

Cheers! Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. I will need some time to ponder on your points. As you might have guessed, I still don't fully understand your point about convergence. I'm sure it's a substantive point, I will just need some time, since we don't share the same background.

I'm planning to respond to your points. It is totally okay if you don't take the time to read them since you already invested so much of your time already, and I'm thankful for that.

Edit: Wait wait wait wait I think I understand our problem. I've just realized, that convergence psychology is a thing. I thought convergence is a term you INVENTED (Lmao speaking of projection I sometimes can't with myself hahahaha). I will now research about it and then I will likely be way more able to integrate it and give you a proper answer. Thanks for bringing it up, it seems interesting and relevant! (Yeah, so your frustration with me is totally justified)

Edited 1 hour ago by Cred

[Cred]

Just having red a little bit about convergence, I 100% agree with your emphasis on it. I wrongly assumed that it is only a holotaxonic concept at best, but I now realize that it can totally be used as an omnimodal tool.

[Cred]

3 hours ago, oOo said:

The structure comes from convergence, a pattern I have been asking you to use as a questioning tool over and over now, not from ontologically prior directions. Read that way, it actually undermines irreducible modes rather than supports them.

(Thanks for reminding me of causation. I will add it to the list of bimodals. I'm not claiming anything is causing anything.)

Yes I agree the modes arise from convergence. Also, I agree that the modes are reducible to ontological existence (I think I'm calling this neutral mode of existence ontonic, and it might be where the term "non-duality" fits neatly into my model) 

Here is a wild shower thought. Maybe convergence is actually the topic of the myth of the tower of babel. If every human was perfectly ontonic, then everyone would live in total harmony with each other or at least in modal alignment. But it would maybe also mean, that we were all too buisy with building a tower and archiving enlightenment that we would forget to care about survival, which is why convergence and the differences between the modal profiles of different people have evolved. Just a thought. Not a formal point.

Edited 1 hour ago by Cred