Hyper-Sanity - Looking for a predictive model of Enlightenment

[gettoefl]

4 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Ok I agree this is powerful. So by your definition sanity is seeing through false assumptions. It's also a good way of putting it.

Just think for a second, there are no "real" or "unreal" paradigms, they are just that - a paradigm, and no paradigm can be the Truth.

Enlightenment is post-paradigm, it's not within any framework.

Excellent, it seems we’re basically in sync here. Let me add one careful distinction to wrap it up cleanly.

Enlightenment is for sure post-paradigm, and for sure no paradigm is the Truth. But paradigms are not all equal in function. Some obscure while some loosen their own grip. When you state that “there are no real or unreal paradigms” this is true at the endpoint, but on the way there it can flatten one important difference: some frameworks reinforce false assumptions, while others exist precisely to expose and undo them.

So when I say “real” versus “unreal,” I’m not suggesting a final metaphysical system. I’m pointing to a diagnostic distinction rather than an ultimate one. This posits a way of noticing whether a paradigm is being used to explain reality or to release the need for explanation altogether.

Sanity, as I’m using it, isn’t allegiance to one paradigm. It’s the moment false assumptions are no longer taken as unquestioned. After that, even the tools used to get there are dropped. And so in that sense, I say that enlightenment is post-paradigm. But it’s reached not by denying all distinctions upfront, but by letting the distinctions do their work and then drop away.

So I think we agree: sanity isn’t adopting a better model of reality. It’s no longer mistaking any perceived model for reality at all. In point of fact, perception cannot reveal truth since it is a headset designed to distort truth. Seeing is not knowing. To taste sanity means to switch off and go within.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@gettoefl

Agree.

For sure I wasn't saying that all paradigms are equally untrue, so yes they can be helpful. After all, without them we wouldn't have been able to get to where we are now in this discussion.

So sanity is also the clear awareness of paradigms without attaching itself to any of them. It would be so hard to measure to this. 

[VeganAwake]

No you're not enlightened because enlightenment is the end of the questioner!

[Cred]

I think what you guys are searching is not hyper-sanity but pure reason

[Anton Rogachevski]

@VeganAwake Did i say i was? 

The one who stops asking questions is epistemically doomed to be stuck in closed-mindedness and dogma.

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 minute ago, Cred said:

I think what you guys are searching is not hyper-sanity but pure reason

Reason is only a small part of sanity I think. 

[Cred]

I disagree, actually. If you choose to ditch a paradigm, you do it out of reason. If you choose to go into the state of not knowing, you still do it out of reason even if the state of not knowing is itself not part of "reason"

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Cred How do you define reason? How can you trust it?

I'm trying to say that sanity is a meta structure that has many parts, and reason is one of them, but not the whole thing. Surely i would be problematic to say that someone is sane but unreasonable.

Edited 3 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Cred]

I only trust reason since yesterday.

I want to give you a thought experiment: What is the creation was a thought that is thinkable? What if the creation is a paradigm that is possible to comprehend with reason, but just nobody did yet?

This would explain the struggle of the critical reasonable people to oscillate between clinging to a paradigm and then realizing that it does not account for the whole picture and then discarding it just to cling to the next one.

I want you to read my proof (sketch) of reality=matter=spirit=idea. I believe this fragmentism has the potential to be that last paradigm. I'm realizing it is arrogant to say. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Cred

[VeganAwake]

10 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@VeganAwake Did i say i was? 

The one who stops asking questions is epistemically doomed to be stuck in closed-mindedness and dogma.

No,

But if you stop listening and believing altogether, there's nothing left to get stuck in 🤷‍♂️

[VeganAwake]

Can't get stuck in a belief if you never had one from the start!

[Anton Rogachevski]

@VeganAwake

The epistemically untrained mind of low sanity collapses into beliefs without noticing. You can't just chose to not believe anything from this place. You are thrown into many unquestioned and even unconscious beliefs. The work is working your way out of this mud with high sobriety to reach the true sanity I'm trying to delineate here. 

[Cred]

@VeganAwake

To those who don't study belief, beliefs are invisible. For the average American patriot, "America is the best country" is not a belief, it is a fact. Without studying beliefs, you can't tell belief from fact.

Edited 3 hours ago by Cred

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Cred Sure you can have a good final paradigm to rest upon, but surely not to hold on to. Send me the stuff, I'll be glad to check it out my friend.

[Cred]

 

[Cred]

Belief and fact are equal in ontomodal epistemics. 

Belief is existence that manifests from Simultaneity (synchronicity). Those who believe synchronize themselves to each other and connect to that aspect of spirit in that way.

Fact is existence that manifests from Difference (information). The act of declaring a fact is the differentiation from it's counter-fact. This means that a fact is not true, but existence.

Edited 3 hours ago by Cred