My Magnum Opus: The Search for the Philosopher's Stone

[Cred]

This is my journal about the journey of pursuing my life purpose which I seemed to have found almost a month ago.

This journey began with a single insight that turned out to be a well that just goes deeper and deeper with no end in sight. I had this insight while formulating the following post:

Thanks to this forum, I can narrow it down to this exact part in the post:

Quote

When you dig deep enough you will realize, what she actually asked was: "Do you approve of my existence?".

This is at the fundamental reason for all social interactions between non-TSPs. This is why they need social interactions, because without them, they wouldn't know whether they exist.

Simply put, the insight is the observation that people seem to engage in social interactions to affirm their preferred mode of existence, which for some is the symbol, while for others, it's the object for example.

This distinction of different modes of existence led me to develop the prototype of the metaphysical concept "ontomodality". Since I came up with this concept, I spent a lot of time contemplating about it, and it led me to have numerous massive insights about the biggest questions of the universe. When I posted "Thoughts on the Theory of Ontomodality" on the February third, I claimed, that it is the unifying theory of all fields of human knowledge and is the "crown jewel of self-actualization". Since then, my belief in the model has only strengthened. It truly might mark the end of all fragmented thinking.

I believe that ontomodality has an insane amount of explanatory power and that it can help answer all of the following questions (I already had a ton of insights about all of these) and much much more:

God

• What is god? What is being? What is existence? What is non-existence?
• What is the difference between existence, life, being, the self and the "I"?
• What is emptiness sunyata?
• What is purpose? What is meaning?

The human

• What is the human?
• What is life, how did it arise and why? What is death? What is survival? How does one overcome death?
• What is consciousness, how did it arise and why?
• Why does consciousness seek unity? If unity is good then why is the collective consciousness fragmented in the first place?
• What is love? What is symbiosis? What is the relationship between the two?

Duality

• What is seperation and duality, how did it arise, and why does it exist?
• Is there a fundamental "first" duality/separation? What are all the dualities? Does it make sense to track, how the dualities of existence came from this one first duality? What would this genealogy of dualities look like?
• What is non-duality? What is liberation? What is harmony? What is infinity? What is transcendence? How are these different from each other?
• What is morality? Does it exist? Does evil exist? Does the "good" exist? Is god good?
• Why does conflict exist? Why is love and unity so hard to attain?

Culture

• What is religion? How did it arise and why? Is it any good?
• What is mythology, how did it arise and why? Is it any good?
• What are non-monotheistic gods? Where do they come from?
• Are there evil gods and good gods and if yes, which are which?
• Is mysticism really better than religion and mythology?
• What is a prophecy? What is a prophet? When does one arise, and can it happen again and if so, how?
• What is the prophecy? What is the future going to look like?
• Is it possible to bring order into the world and if so, who will do it? Is there an "end" to history?
• What is language? What would the ideal language look like?

This must do for my first post of this journal, I need to give my brain some rest. I did not even scratch the surface.

Edited February 28 by Cred

[Cred]

I have made a lot of notes this month and forgot to share them. Here they are. The numbers signify which day of March.

This post

and this post

Might help for understanding some of these notes.

11

• Monophonic (sequentiality): processing
• Polyphonic (simultaneity): interpreting
• Resophonic / ampliphonic / phase flow / feedback / resonant (sensitivity): ruminating
• Ontophonic: neither

 

• I think an HSP (highly sensitive person) is someone who is neither monophonic nor polyphonic.
• “Harmonic” is now replaced with euphonic
• “Disharmonic” is replaced with cacophonic
• Hylophony: high-entropy symphony
• Aniphony: low-entropy symphony
• What is omniphonic?

 

• “The reason feedback loops create stable structures everywhere in physics is that they impose a self-consistency condition on waves. Only patterns that reproduce themselves after one cycle survive.”

12

• What if a field, a wave, and space are the same thing?
• Simultaneity asks whether a wave is similar
• Sequentiality asks whether a wave is coherent
• Sensitivity asks whether a wave is resonant

14

Main claim:

• Reality is consistent because the psyche must be consistent.
• The stability of reality equals the stability of the mind.

Example:

• When the mind becomes unstable → dreams occur (reality becomes chaotic).
• A dream is not unstable in terms of resonance. In fact, a dream is often more resonant in the symbolic and subjective/emotional modes than the waking state.
• A dream is only dissonant with respect to the objective, logical mode of resonance.
• In this way, dreaming may create a balance between the three modes (assuming there are only three), compared to someone who does not sleep.

 

• When asked what determines the structure of the mind, Leo says: It is a deep mystery.

 

• The mind has the structure of a field.
• When the field is not excited, it is empty.
• When it resonates, it becomes a space—a non-linear resonant body with system-like qualities, and thus becomes existent.

Criticism of the resonance idea:

• What patterns?
• What is resonance?
• Where does it come from?
• Why is it necessary?

Thoughts

• How do different frequencies interact with one another over time?
• The “sensitive” topology is resonant; the ADHD topology is linear; the neurotypical topology is non-linear; the autistic topology is sequential.
• The topology of autistic people has more depth; the topology of neurotypical people is more self-communicating and therefore less rigid; the topology of HSPs is more reflective (and/or recursive?).
• What is the minimal fractal that exhibits these properties?
• In neurotypical individuals, the topology itself has wave-like qualities; in ADHD individuals, the topology is more rigid.

14 (continued)

• The dopamine system seeks collapse
• The serotonin system seeks stability
• The fight-or-flight system seeks disintegration

15

• Body (Leib), Merleau-Ponty: physical body, sounding body, resonant body, embodiment
• Repetition (Deleuze)
• What is doubt in my theory?
• Doubt vs. contemplation:
• Doubt: “I do not accept this because…”
• Constructive feedback: “I accept you, but here you could improve.”

16

Communication:

• Humor, provocation, ragebait (e.g., Sneako / IShowSpeed style)
• Streaming?

Website:

• Interactive website with colorful visuals
• Extremely complex site, controllable via a controller
• YouTube videos alternating between: me, a notes app and the website
• Universal introduction → perspectives on different fields
• Domain name???

Fields:

• Pedagogy
• Education

Dualities

• A symphony is:
• Neither ideal nor non-ideal
• Neither idea nor non-idea
• Neither order nor chaos
• Neither infinite nor finite
• Neither unity nor duality
• Neither synthesis nor non-synthesis
• Neither symbiosis nor non-symbiosis
• Neither harmony nor disharmony
• → Maybe: “super-combination”?
• → Or simply: “a symphony between …”

 

• Lack of human dignity = cacophony (a cacophonic judgment)
• Human dignity = euphony

Thoughts

• Should I first study mythology to find the perfect name?
• What are the Infinity Stones?

17

System = process

18

• Symphony → beauty beyond harmony
• Euphony → symphony without alienation
• Cacophony → symphony with alienation
• Orchestra → reality giving birth to the symphony that is being
• Conductor → visionary who guides the course of history

 

• The soul is the striving of the spirit toward embodiment; it is embodied spirit
• The body of Christ is pure embodiment without alienation

 

• Being is embodiment
• Spirit is the field
• Soul is the wave
• Body is space

 

• Consonance and its opposite: dissonance
• Both consonance and dissonance can be embodied
• Resonance can include both consonance and dissonance
• When does space become a body? → When it becomes personal
• Symbiosis is the integral (the intact, the whole)
• Only a coherent wave can persist and thus exist
• Incoherence leads to destructive interference and thus non-existence
• Avoid resonance catastrophe
• Masking is when one’s own topology is adapted to avoid incoherence
• Masking is stabilizing and grounding. If done excessively and unconsciously, it can lead to fragmentation
• Masking is necessary to build something
• Masking is the tension between the true self and the self-image
• What role does the unconscious play?
• The collective unconscious consists of the three properties of the wave

Edited Thursday at 06:21 PM by Cred

[Cred]

    19.1

1 Hate and non-hate are dialectical opposites. Non-hate breeds more hate than hating hate. When you hate hatred, you gain the energy to win against hatred and decrease hatred overall
2 The same is true for tolerance.
3 This seems to also be true for judgement (and therefore alienation?)
4 Can I find abstract concepts to formulize this logically abstractly?
5 Is this also true for alienation?
6 If this is true does it even make sense anymore to declare alienation as evil? 
 
    19.2

1 Thesis: The purpose of alienation is to induce depression which allows for reevaluation
2 So when I tell a zionist "zionism is a cancer", knowing fully well, that they identify with that ideology and that this causes major alienation in them, it is still "moral" since I want them to become depressed 3 and reevaluate their ideology
4 The same is true for: "You obviously have autism, if you deny this you are an idiot"
5 What is the danger of this approach?

    19.3

1 Emotion is the language of Resonance
2 Symbolism is the language of Meaning
3 The Pattern is the language of Sequenciality
4 The somatic language is the language of embodiment
5 Being is the language of consciousness 

    19.4

1 Do all dualities come from the unity-duality duality?
1.1 No, the infinity-finite duality is seperate
1.1.1 The infinty-finite duality comes from complexity-simplicity
1.2 What about power-cuteness?
1.2.1 Dude no idea where this duality is coming from. In my interpretation, this seems to be an important aspect of the holy Trinity and Christianity, with the father being power,  the son being cuteness (in German, I'm using the word “Liebenswürdigkeit” which means something like “being worthy of love” (I think cuteness is fundamentally the same thing as that which needs protection and is therefore worthy of love) and the holy spirit being god knows what (meaning would make sense I guess).
1.2.2 It could be sequenciality-resonance. But in my model, power is more closely associated with “the stability of a space”. I think it might make sense to differentiale between stability and power.
1.2.3 use an idea: I'm defining power in such a way, that it is the ability to influence material reality. And since resonance can only be in resonance with reality and not change it and meaning can only interpret reality and not change it, sequentiality is the only mode of existence that is capable of that. On that note, change is inherently sequential. The transition from unchanged to changed is a sequence. Yeah, it seems to make a lot of sense.

2 it seems there are multiple "styles" of survival. The sequenciality mode is changing reality, the resonance mode is being cute so that you are protected and the meaning mode is charging either of those with meaning which motivates the pursuit (?).  

3 (1.2.1.1) If the holy spirit is the unconscious, then it checks out perfectly since the unconscious it that which processes meaning.

4 (1.1.1.1) The complexity-simplicity duality can be summarized as “granularity”.
4.1 It seems that granularity is not integrated into the model yet?
4.2 It seems this is connected to wholeness, self-similarity and therefore the fractal. Is it emergent of what I already have or seperate?
4.2.1 It seems to be a necessary condition to even be able to say stuff like: “When I say field, I mean something abstract that applies to all levels of granularity”.
4.2.2 It seems that it is the nessecary condition for any abtraction and therefore metaphysics.
4.2.3 The fractal seems to point to a pattern that has the self-similarity aspect.
4.3 (4.2.3.1) Can something self-similar that exists within the resonance and the meaning modes of existence be found respectively?

    19.5

1 Another word for meaning is “guide” and “decision” and “belief”.
1.1 Yeah the word guide is really freaking sweet.
1.2 Is decision really a mix of sequenciality and guide?

2 Another word for resonance is “qualia” damn this is an amazing term. I might be using this primarily now. “Qualia, guide and sequence” has a nice ring to it.
2.1 What is the difference between qualia and phenomenon?

3 Another word for sequence is “step”. (Qualia, guide, step?)
3.1 another word for sequence is “cycle”. (Qualia, guide, cycle. Now this is cold)

4 Oh shit, if I am using the word guide now, it makes sense to use the five pointed star as a symbol for it like in the sense of "guiding star". That's really satisfying.
4.1 Shit the german translation of guide is “führer” which is ass for obvious reasons lol.

5 There is one leap of faith which is that of stopping self-doubt. I need to remember this imagery of the "leap to authenticity”.

6 I found this really cool Mao quote: “No investigation, no right to speak.”
6.1 It seems to be a very concise and more broad version of the pre-trans-fallacy of Ken Wilber.

    19.6

1 Damn I might have found a good rearrangement of the terms: 
1.1 the field is substance. (Or consciousness?)
1.2 the wave is the spirit (or the soul instead?).
1.3 sequenciality is consciousness or the father. (Or reason? Or Intellect?)
1.4 qualia is the soul (or the animus instead?) or the son.
1.5 guide is the unconscious or the holy spirit.
1.5.1 I'm struggling trying to derive the guide from the wave. I think it is the collapse of the wave function. But it seems to me that not every wave function can collapse so the generality is kind of broken. But maybe this is for us maybe every wave can collapse? The way that I explained meaning before was with the spectrum, which is a cool idea, but I think this is really incomplete.
1.5.1.1 okay, I have an idea. The proposal of a wave is always faith based because of the uncertainty principle.
1.5.1.1.1 down this is a really cool thought. There seems to be an interesting relationship between the idea of uncertainty which is embodied by the guide and the uncertainty principle. I think at the end of the day the uncertainty principle is the proof that this Trinity is one which makes sense. Because without certainty, not only the guide is non-existent, but also the Qualia and the sequence (cycle?).

2 I need to start integrating the term essence.

Somatic language
3 (19.3.4) the somatic language is more broad than the language of symbolism which is the language of the guide and the language of logic which is the language of the sequence. What this means is that there's also a language of qualia which is the language of emotion. Until now I have mistaken the somatic language for the language of emotion, but there is a subtle difference. I will start contemplating about what language precisely encapsulates emotion. I will have to start looking into and analysing poetry.
3.1 since embodiment includes the Trinity, the somatic language is actually the most powerful one. This is because the body language is always a sequence with symbolic meaning (every yoga pose for example can be interpreted as a symbol with meaning) and with emotion attached (every pose and every yoga pose points to some kind of emotion). This makes complete sense to me since there are a lot of spiritual traditions that focus on the somatic experience a lot through the art of movement.
3.2 this kind of means that I need that distinction between that part of the spirit which wants to embody and that part of the spirit which seeks to feel emotion. Right now, I have the spirit as this which is embodying and the soul as that which feels emotion, and it kind of makes sense but I'm not 100% happy with the usage of spirit. I think the word soul fits both spots the best, but I want to distinguish properly. At the other hand, I think spirit works just fine.

    19.7

Qualia
1 I need to learn more about qualia. I think both the sequence and the guide might be also a kind in qualia. So qualia seems to be equivalent to embodyment. This is really cool but then I need to find a replacement for what used to be resonance. I think phenomenon is pretty good.
1.1 This leads to the current trinity: Sequence, Phenomenon, Guide. 
1.2 Oh shit okay chatGPT says that phenomenon is broader than qualia so never mind. So I guess the phenomenon is that which relates to embodyment?
1.3 note to self: Nagel is important for understanding qualia.

Relativity
2 Is the sequence relative? Is qualia relative? Is embodyment relative? If no, then why does space, time and meaning happen ti be relative?
2.1 I think they are all relative but in distinct ways.
2.2 I need to contemplate more about relativity. It is not obvious how relativity arises from what I currently have or if it is another seperate thing
2.3 Is relativity and absoluteness another one of those dualities?
2.3.1 "The One is neither relative nor absolute" damn thats cold.
2.3.1.1 reminder of the phrase "is a supercombination"

3 List of things I need to integrate: Relativity, granularity
3.1 Also information

5 I think I will be translating guide to "sinn" in german. 

6 Damn I just realized that sequence is quantity and resonance, qualia is quality.
6.1 So I could Just do quantity, quality, guide (or back to meaning? Wait no purpose??)
6.2  Quantity, Quality, Purpose. Thats cool

7 Let's collect the different ways to conceptualize the trinity.
7.1 Frequency, Amplitude, Particle
7.2 Quantity, Quality, Purpose
7.3 Sequenciality, Cyclicality, Parallelity
7.4 Father, Son, Holy Spirit
7.5 Intellect, Soul, the Unconscious
7.6 Deductive, Empirical, Inductive (DAMN)

7.1.1 I think that saying "this is a chair" might fundamentally require the same faith as saying "this is a particle".
7.6.1 This opens the question: Is probability a form of inductive reasoning???? Damn all of 7.6 are different forms of reason? this means reason is super broad actually holy shiat. So it seems reason is fundamentally tied to spirit (geist). 
7.6.2 Are there other forms of reason? I think that there is also a neutral Zen form of reason that is embodyment (DAMN x2). And a "transneutral" form which is non-embodyment which is embodying emptiness throught nirvana (DAMN x3)
7.6.3 Holy shit I think this is it! This might be the most satisfying one! "the tendency towards deductive reasoning" is such a good way to encapsulate what autism is.
7.7 I think that all of those trinities are subtly different but I believe they are all linearily independent in regards to the existence space.

8 (7.6.4) Reason
8.1 Okay it seems like reason has a central place in my theory now which is extremely satisfying knowing the history of western philosophy. This was kind of a big missing piece.
8.2 Now there is a problem. It is hard to separate inductive reason from sequenciality (?)
8.3 The Question opens up: How is an axiom derived? I think an Axiom is closely related to embodyment. The reasoning goes like this: An axiom is true if its truth is a necessary condition for the possibility of embodyment itself as it is in this moment. (You see I'm trying to engage in language without the subject since that would be a form of empirical reason)
8.4 This really just is unbelievably satisfying. Here is why this is important. At the end what's really important for morality and existence is the relationship between the true self and the self-image. The way I understand the true self is the preferred mode of reasoning of the self. What's important now is that the self image is, even if you are not a scientist or a philosopher, still constructed with reason. This opens up a very interesting dynamic between the true self and the self image that can be investigated.

Edited Friday at 06:44 AM by Cred

[Cred]

20 

20.1

1 (March 19.6.1.5.1.2) I think that the collapse of the wavefunction might be the necessity for “grasping”. So any kind of materialism is faith based. When you believe, you grasp a chair then there has to be some kind of collapse. Okay this also works for the symbol. let’s say you have got a bunch of atoms that are arranged in a chair shape. The moment you see the chair the arrangement “collapses” into the symbol “chair” for you. So the collapse of the wavefunction into the particle is fundamentally the same as the collapse of an image into a symbol. Cool idea.
1.1 I guess I need to relate this to the double slit experiment do I.
1.1.1 (March 19.7.7.7) new trinity conceptualization: Step, Feel, Grasp

20.2

https://youtube.com/shorts/fvdiVlJiy4I?is=Wnwbr2HxS0EIY9N1

Goddamn. I think it is because they don't understand alienation.

20.3

https://youtube.com/shorts/rPZ89xFA8ww?is=jXgGjShalr1MiVqD

I think Jerome Powell is a good example of someone who is likely autistic and lives in complete self-acceptence, which leads to this level of incorruptibility.

20.4

Form, Emptiness, Graspability, non-Graspability

1 I have not integrated the term "Form" yet.
1.1 "Form is Emptiness". What does this mean? In my model, non-Wave, which is Silence is Emptiness.
1.1.1 This of course raises the question what quantum fluctuations  are and what ripples in spacetime are.
1.1.1.1 I don't know much about quantum fluctuations but I've heard their description is still a mystery and even is an aspect of one of the millennium problems.
1.2 I have an idea. let's look at a tree, for example. If you don't look at it sequentially and you don't look at the qualia and you don't look at the symbol "tree", what your left with is pure Embodiment, which is Form, which is Idea, which is Essence?
2 I will try to gain more consistency in spelling metaphysical concepts capitalized.
1.2.1 It seems that Form, Idea, Essence posit something beyond the Field. Is this also the case for Embodiment? This is a really interesting question. It seems that the Form cannot exist without Boundary which is an aspect of Embodyment, however Embodyment is a very immediate concept and only really ever exists in the now and is not eternal. So it seems like Form and Embodyment potentially have some sort of strange-loop dynamic.
1.2.1.1 

2 (1.1.1.1.1) Fluctuations
2.1 It seems that Fluctuation (new metaphysical term?) might even be more fundamental than the Wave, with the Wave possibly being emergent from the Fluctuation. Their etymology is very similar. 
2.1.1 Google AI: "Fluctuation originated in the mid-15th century from the Latin fluctuātiōnem ("a wavering or vacillation"). It is derived from the verb fluctuāre ("to undulate or move in waves"), which stems from fluctus ("a wave, flow, or surge") and fluere ("to flow"). The term implies constant, irregular, wavelike motion or change."
2.1.1.1 WHAT THE HELL THE TERM VACILLATION IS CRAZY
2.1.1.1.1 Oxford languages: "the inability to decide between different opinions or actions; indecision."
2.1.1.1.1.1 Ah now I remember, these fluctuation must exist because of the uncertainty principle. Damn that's cold that "the pure Absolute/Field" and therefore Emptiness seems to be impossible. What if everything that exists, exists purely and only because the absolute is ungraspable? Is Ungraspability (another new metaphysical concept unlocked) the origin of existence? The helly? This is such a cool thought.

3 (2.1.1.1.1.1.1) Ungraspability
3.1 It seems I need to update my usage of the Grasp. I used it only in relation with meaning (see 20.1) but it seems to be more universal.
3.2 It seems that the purpose of reason is to grasp. Reasoning is the attempt at grasping.
3.3 Google AI: ""Grasp" (verb) emerged in the mid-14th century, meaning to "reach, grope, or feel around," likely from Middle English graspen or grapsen, a metathesis of Old English græpsan ("to touch, feel"). It stems from Proto-Germanic *grap-/ *grab- ("to seize") and the PIE root *ghrebh- (1) ("to seize, reach"), closely related to "grab" and "grope"."
3.3.1 It seems that the term graspability is very closely tied to the term Embodyment. This would make Ungraspability which is the origin of Fluctuation, non-Embodyment, which is Emptiness. Okay this is kinda mindblowing.
3.3.1.1 Okay so we go from Ungraspability which is non-Embodyment and Emptiness to Fluctuation, which is chaos to Wave which is order to Embodyment which leads to Form? This would affirm the emptiness is form lart of the Heart Sutra.

20.5

1 If I know what reason is, what is truth then?

2 I have not integrated the prefrontal cortex. I should in general try to focus more on explaining the different brain regions. I think I can explain all of them with my model.
2.1 If I remember correctly, the prefrontal cortex has something to do with inhibition. So it seems that it has something to do with being conscious. I have not thought about the being conscious, being unconscious duality with regard to my model in a long time and it has changed a lot since then.

3 List if things I need to integrate: Information, granularity, relativity, being conscious vs being unconscious.

20.6

1 Quantum foam.

4 reflection might be a better word then resonance. So Sequenciality, Reflection, Simultaneity?

20.7

Point
1 Differentiating between grasping an pointing.
1.1 Trinity: Sequence, Point, Reflection
1.2 A symbol "points" into the existence space. Pointing is the essence of the symbol?
1.2.1 Embodiment space?
1.3 A phenomenon is grasped. Qualia is grasped. Qualia is a reflection.
1.4 Every pointing is also grasping. A pattern can be grasped.
1.5 What us the difference between a point and the pointer? Is that which embodies the point the pointer?
1.6 Point vs fixation vs whole vs spot vs relativity vs absolute
1.6.1 vs fix-point vs floating-point
1.6.2 vs singularity
1.6.1.1 A symbol is a pointer to a point. If that point is not interpreted (fixed), it is aflaot (a floating-point). If it is interpreted it becomes fixed (fix-point).

Embodiments
2 Examples of Embodiments of different aspects of the trinity.
2.1 Qualia is that which embodies the reflection.
2.2 The pattern is that which embodies the sequence.
2.3 The symbol is that which embodies the point.
2.3.1 No the pointer is that which embodies the point?
2.3.1.1 This seems really brilliant since in physics, a point can not exist in reality because of the uncertainty principle. Does the same hold for the sequence and the reflection?

20.8

Sign language
1 Invent a kind of sign language to decribe every aspect of embodiment and use it when you describe your model to maximize layers of comprehension.
1.1 Sign language is a kind of somatic language.
1.2 What is a gesture? A "word" in a somatic language
1.2.1 Wait this is actually kind of a cool train of thought.
1.3 This is very Petersonian
1.4 "layers of comprehension" is an interesting concept.

Addiction
2 What is an addiction in my framework?
2.1 How can my framework help to cure it?
2.2 Example: smoking.

3 I think I will replace the word sequence with repetition since the sequence is a kind of combination of point and repetition. 
3.1 "If one repeats a point, it becomes a sequence of points." 
3.2 This might have a trickle down effect on my theory.
3.2.1 I think this makes a lot of sense though

20.9

1 Power without vulnerability is fragility.

2 Contemplate about the geometric method of Spinoza and how it relates to your methodology.
2.1 What is the difference between a logic and geometry?
2.2 I seems the reason why Spinoza chose to associate his method with geometry is because geometry was more strict than logic in his time. 
2.3 Can I derive my theory from literal geometry? I mean the terms repetition, reflection, point are pretty geometric.
2.3.1 In order for there to be a point, there had to be a multitude of options. The selection of a point is necessarily arbitrary. A point is a choice.
2.3.1.1 Example: At the beginning of the game of life, the first cells have to be chosen.
2.4 learn about the logical structure of euclidean geometry. 

3 What is an operator?

4 Methodology
4.1 Apparently there are three different degrees of logical rigor: Formally rigorous (mathematical), Systematically deductive, Linguistically-analytically precise
4.1.1 Can I have the whole cake?

5 Integrate linearity and nonlinearity (a new duality?)

6 Note to self: Fashionable nonesense is a book critiquing the use of scientific terms (like field ?) in philosophy.
6.1 It seems that Deleuze and Félix Guattari are very relevant to my theory.
6.1.1 It seems they borrow concepts from physics like nonlinear systems, singularity, topology, chaos, manifolds in an artistic way which I do too and I love it. I wonder if the authors of fashionable nonsense are just angry science people who don't understand post-modernism and linguistics.

7 Interesting term: Ecosophy
7.1 Field Ecosophy has a nice ring to it.

Edited Friday at 11:18 PM by Cred

[Cred]

21

21.1

1 Integrate manifold. It seems the term manifold is more broad than the term field. So maybe god=manifold?
1.1 Manifold ontology also has a nice ring to it.

2 Note to self: Learn more about pyrrhonianism. Especially the thing about always posing the counterargument to archieve equilibrium.
2.1 What is equilibrium?
2.1.1 The equilibrium between... vs the supercombination between...
2.1.2 Is emptiness the equilibrium between existence and non-existence???? This feels right.
2.1.3 eq. vs balance
2.1.4 Love is equilibrium

3 What is trinity
3.1 Augustine if Hippo 🦛 is relevant.

4 integrate ida and pingala
4.1 master and his emissary
4.2 Yin and yang

21.2

1 Reality has three aspects: Continuum, Axis and Trinity. (123)
1.1 Continuum is granularity and it is the strange loop.

2 Learn about numerology. Is is a part of gnosticism?

21.3

1 focal point is point of reflection

21.4

1 What is the true relationship between complexity and simplicity?
1.1 If you only have complexity, you can't have equilibrium. But is is possible to only have simplicity?
1.2 is weakness related to simplicity and power related to complexity? This seems right. 
1.3 Does comlexity only apply to Repetition? No.
1.4 What is the relationship between resonance (now a mode of embodiment) and complexity?

2 What is the relationship between contradiction and non-contradiction? Is there also an equilibrium?

3 Without polarization, unity is not possible

4 Is it the case that a pointer can be deconstructed but a pattern can not?

21.5

1 I went to the literal drawing board and came up with some new terms.
1.1 There is the continuum, the polarity and the trinity. They make up the six fundamental principles of reality: The Hexad (?)
1.1.01 The continuum is self-similarity
1.1.02 The polarity is the axis of unity and duality
1.1.03 The trinity is: repetition, reflection, point.
1.1.11 Where is the matter->spirit duality? It's part of the continuum. 
1.1.12 Where is dialectics?
1.1.13 Where are the chakras? The chakras are at the same time part of the continuum and the polarity axis (lower chakras duality, higher chakras unity)
1.1.21 There is also the path to liberation.

2 What is epilepsy?

21.6

1 What is the difference between guiding for direction and guiding towards point?

2 Polarity in magnetism vs polarity in the hexad.

3 What is ragebaiting? Can it be mastered?

21.7

1 What is the difference between high frequency and high complexity?

Edited 18 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

22

22.1

1 It's easy the remember the system since: 0-Continuum, 1-Path, 2-Polarity, 3-Trinty. 0123. Good didactics.
1.1 This could make for very compact language.
1.1.1 I could inspire myself from Georg Cantor and find another cool symbol and do what he did with the aleph numbers. The question just is: What unifies 0123?
1.2 It seems they are laws. The 0th law, 1st law, 2nd law, 3rd law. Damn that's cold
1.3 The path is the path from survival to liberation btw. (?)
1.4 It seems like I need to learn about numerology

2 What does nicotine do?

3 (1.4.1) Numerology
3.1 It seems what I'm doing is already a kind of numerology.

3.2 0=self-similarity
3.2.1 01=Idea
3.2.2 02=Form
3.2.3 03=Body
3.2.4 04=Consciousness
3.2.5 05=Idea
3.2.6 00=emptiness?

3.3 1=path, 10=survival
3.4 11=resonance
3.4.1 11 is accessed through acceptence of death
3.4.1.1 being-towards-death (Heidegger)
3.5 12=harmony
3.5.1 12 enabled through acceptence of dissonance
3.6 13=symphony
3.6.1 13 enabled through radical acceptence
3.6.2 Damn that's the unlucky number for the highest principle😭

Alternative notation
4 Polarity: {•}. Damn that seems like an interesting notation for "space"
4.1 Contimuum: 🌀, O, 0
4.2 Polarity: <->
4.3 Path: |

5 Metonymy cool word Lacan

6 (1.2.1) What is a law? It seems to be very closely related to 33 = point

7 Father seems to be a mix of guide (point=33) and repetition=31. Holy spirit seems to be a mix of reflection=32 and point=33. If the son is now a mix of 31 and 32 then it  checks out.

Rizhome (Deleuze)
8 It seems what I'm doing is I'm choosing some point on the rhizome and then trying to trace the entire rhizome in a satisfying hierarchical, 
numerical way. With this designation, I'm exerting power on and competing (competition is 33-10=point-survival ?) with different designations and the rizhome itself, but this is exactly the point and the goal. The concept of the rizhome is true but when one is lost in it, it leads to impotence in regards to fighting the status quo through offering an alternative. Fight power with power. This is a good slogan. This is Marxism-Leninism.
8.1 "Designation" is actually a pretty satisfying term to describe this. It seems that designation is in a sense more broad than the term ideology. 8.1.1 Or is it? No I think it might be the same. But I like designation since it is a less loaded term and it kind of relativises itself through its explicit connection to the rizhome. So designation is kind of an anti-ideology ideology which checks out perfectly. It's the fragment. It's the one piece. It's the will of D.
8.2 "Designation ontology"
8.3 This points to a new polarity which is: Rizhome-designation. 8.3.1 Where does it come from? It seems to have a lot to do with point = 33. I'm also smelling complexity and self-similarity=0. Complexity=trinity=3 I'm pretty sure. So Designation is {0, 3, 33}. Rizhome is non-point designation so just {0, 3}. Just self-similarity and complexity. This makes so much sense wtf.
8.3.1.1 This {•} is interesting notation I need to work on that. I could also do for example 0-3-33. I think the "-" is good because it symbolizes a link and I like the image of the link which is not existent in itself and only exists as the relation to other entities which is a pretty good descripiton of all of these designations.
8.3.1.2 It seems to make sense to call one of these numbers a "designation" since designation is what the model designates itself as.

9=1.1.1.1 Since the designation is such a central term in the self-description of the model I could use some fancy calligraphy version of D.  It's the will of D! Bro HOW does this check out so well?!??!?!😭
9.1 I could use kind of an oldschool german calligraphy (fraktur). This is risky because it is a Nazi dogwhistle  which is also good because it leads to polarization which is necessary for unity. It is also a good way to convey this point: "In the same way that communism in China is the best thing for Chinese culture, communism in the west is the best thing for Western culture"
9.2 What's also crazy is that "fraktur" has the same root as fragment=designation=0-3-33 and fractal≈0-33-31-32=self-similar-fixed-repeated-reflection.

10 Lol is seems like this journal itself is a kind of designation with a similar structure. There is def a clash in notation. Ideally I would make the desigs of the desig ontology bold but I'm transferring the text from the notes app which makes the bold disappear. Maybe I will eventually find a solution.

11 A structure that makes sense is to denote 1.D as "the first version of designation" or something like Cred.1.D "the first of Creds designations". And then for example, Cred.1.D.0-3=Rizhome. I like that "-" and "‎ = " are so similar, it makes the notation satisfyingly coherent.
11.1 Wait this is fun: Designation.0-3-33=Designation. Strange loop! Strange-loop is 0-31-32-33. 0=Self-similarity, 31-32 is repeated reflection which is loop. The strange loop is also a symbol which means it is fixed=point=33. This is interesting because 3-31-32-33 is intelligence. So what this would mean that a strange-loop is "the simplest form of intelligence" which is a very cool idea. I could also number the different "attempts" at denoting different terms within one designation but I have to see that the notation doesn't become too bloated too fast. I feel like git can offer a lot of inspiration for this. I could also just use "≈" when it's meant as a suggestion.
11.2 This is getting very obscure and jargony fast I love it👹

12 It is important to note that the desigs are not numbers but symbols. So what I'm doing is closer to creating some kind of analytical language to doing maths. I'm planning to invent alternative symbols that are more graspable than numbers that exist in parallel to the numbers for each D.

13 I need to find a better word for "a symbol inside a designation which is itself a designation but designation is redundant". Node? Node is great actually. 1.3.1 Nodes (symbol), Links ("-"), statements ("‎ = "). Sounds very logical and coherent so far.
13.1 The question is now: What precisely does "." stand for then? Extension? It makes sense that is also just means node.
13.2 I think it makes sense to denote a node in the abstract sense as: "•" or as "." also works. 

14 Power accumulation for fighting power is distinct from power accumulation as a form of displacement.

22.2

1 Name for post about desig: Attempt at an analytical designation of ontology

2 I love the idea that the link symbol "-" is a metonymy for the brunnian link which itself is a metonymy for "a link that can't exist as a link without its neighboring links." or more abstractly: "that which can't exist as itself without those entities it is in relation with". Another version is: "that which exists is that which is as that which spans a space with others of its kind, which does not hold for sunyata"
2.1 This makes the link and the node equivalent which is sweet since I want the designation to be collapsible (into emptiness) like that.
2.2 I could also call a "node" a lonk this would be fun.

3 This kind of •=•-•-•=•-• notation is similar to molecular notation which is fun. Also it is convenient actually bc this means there are probably already tools to denote this kind of structure in Latex or something.
3.1  •=•-•-•=•-• is lonk is lonk link lonk link lonk is lonk link lonk. I feel like I have just unlocked a new level of autism at this point. 
3.1.1 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnx6IKKkmXcrAHA1gl7ryF5Lm1QccLHm8rn8f59OMMqg&s=10 me
3.1.2 This is very Douglas Hofstadter. I need to keep reading GEB I'm like at page 60. Although I feel like I'm having more fun just reverse engineering the book without reading it completely. My brain kinda learns better by reverse engineering shit instead of reading a ton.

4 Humor is a small ideological shift, rage bait is a bigger one, offending is bigger yet and alienation is the biggest. The laugh tale is the destruction of the hegemonic ideology.

5 This journal seems to be designation Cred.0.D and its goal is to find the first designation which is Cred.1.D.  
5.1 as an example: Cred.0.D.2026.March.22.5="Metonymy cool word Lacan"

6 Metonymy≈0-33. Or 32-33="reflection of a point"? Yeah the latter makes more sense.
6.1 So is that what the son is? It kinda makes sense. "the son symbol=point=33 is the reflection of the father symbol". Kinda checks out actually.

7 Space=2=polarity. Deleuze.difference=Cred.1.D.22=duality.

8 I feel like the designation supercharges thinking just because it is so hierarchical. 
8.1 I need to learn more about Focault.

22.3

1 point-selves cling to capitalism because pursuing and achieving capital is their way of feeling valued.
1.1 Therefore, If one wants to abolish money, one has to establish an alternative system for personal-identity-valuation. 
1.2 The participation of such system must be optional, so that non-point-selves don't suffer.

2 Relativity is non-point=!33(?)

3 I like the idea that this becomes a real speakable language. I feel like there are a couple mega autistic people who would be down learning this language.
3.1 I'm doing the ultimate project based learning. I'm not reading about linguistics. I'm inventing a language and then I analyze my own language.

4 Self-hatred is distinct from harted from injustice.

5 Maybe change point to "fixation". Repetition, Reflection, Fixation. This creates cofusion though since ADHD=non-fixation.

22.4

1 I like that it begins with the letter D but I must say that designation is not perfect. The literal meaning is just desig=33 not 3-33.
1.1 I think an interesting alternative is "tracing".
1.2 Designation is a very loaded nuanced term in analytical philosophy. I need to learn more about it. I'm tending to switch to tracing for now. 

2=5.1 A good word for point in german is "setzung".
2.1 alt word for point is "laying"
2.2 Just definition is also good. But that's too mathematical.
2.3 I think I will just stay with point and setzung.

3 what the hell is schizoanalysis. Sounds super wonky.
3.1 chaosmosis, bifurcation, ontological heterogeneity
3.2 It seems there already exists a strong relationship between psychoanalysis and ontology in continental philosophy.

4 What is field in the tracing?
4.1 Field is the Origin so O?
4.1.1 Ø is the ungraspable?
4.1.1.1 that's cold honestly.
4.2 I have to remember my point about the ungraspable but I'm too lazy. Maybe I can fit the field and the ungraspable in the continuum.

5 If 21-!12 is the maw and 22-!12 is the abyss, what is void? void=!2-!12=non-space-non-love ? 
5.1 (Or 2 with overline, or 2' or ~2 or non-2)

6 What is the difference between perversion and alienation? 
6.1 More importantly what is alienation numerically?
6.2 I think it's roughly the same. Perversion is a form of alienation.

6 I can make the language more compact with regular expressions
6.1 Regex
6.2 System=31-32-33=3[1,2,3]. Honestly not much better lol. Wait or system=3*.
6.2.1 I'm not 100% sure about system 3* btw. I think resonance=3*.
6.2.1.1 Yeah I think system=3(2,3)-2(1,2)="a space where points are interacting". It does not imply change.

7 wait I have an interesting idea. I was talking about somatic languages. What's fun, Is the idea that language itself is a somatic language, since at the end of the day, it requires a performance of movement of the mouth and the tongue, etc. 
7.1 So what this also means is that each movement can be interpreted like sign language, language of body movement could be interpreted for example.
7.2 so once I'm moving away from the numerical symbols into language territory, I can try to find those vocals whose "performance"resemblance the meaning of that which is vocalized.
7.3 what I could also do is create a language that is inherently, numerical, and mathematical. So I don't need multiple versions at the same time in a sense.

8 rename polarity=2 to space? Polarity is good since it can easily be associated with 2 but space is good since duality=22 and polarity=2 seems redundant. Yeah I'm tending to 2=space.
8.1 Wait what I could also do is 2=field and 21-22=space. This seems neat actually. Yeah that checks out.

9 Wave=3•1|2|3, Intelligence=3-wave. 

22.5

1 What is embodiment? Wait body is just 03.
1.1 okay maybe it's 03-21-22=body-space

2 I could also make 0=self-similarity more detailed like:
2.1 00=absolute, 01=idea
2.2 02=ungraspable=emptiness=vaccilating.
2.3 03=graspable=form=wave= oscillating. 04=matter=pulsating
2.4 05=body=humming
2.6 06=mind=buzzing
2.7 07=consciousness
2.8 08=Idea.

3 Maybe differentiate between perversion=!2="destruction of space" and alienation=? Wait no alienation is also !2. I guess alienation is more on the !21=non-unity=abyss side and perversion is more on the !22=non-duality=maw side.
3.1 The question now is ofc what is just !2?
3.1.1 I think this makes sense: perversion=maw=!2-!22, alienation=!2, anihilation=void=!2-!21-!22, fragmentation=abyss=!2-!21.

4 soul=05-2=body-field

5 01234 would be fun and 4 is just 0,1,2,3 lol. "the 4-trace". Wait this would make 4=absolute. That's cool actually. Also it solves the problem that 00=absolute does not make 100% sense. What's a little unsatisfying is that they are not ordered by fundamentality. It should be 40231. Looks like a postal code. Yeah that place exists in germany it's like 2 hours from my where I am. Maybe there I will find my guru or some shit lol.
5.1 Alternative designations of the 4.
5.1.1 Granularity, Ascendance, Polarity, Complexity, Oneness