I found the Answer

[Cred]

It is February 28. at 7:00 am and I've found it. I did not sleep. I needed the answer and I got it. This is not clickbait.

I'm now more convinced than ever that ontomodality can provide the answer to all the most important questions of the universe and I just figured out the first and most important one which is:

How did it all begin?

The argument is very logical which surprises me tbh. I did not expect that it would be possible to answer this question logically.

Are you ready? Maybe put some coffee into your mouth since you might need something to spit out. Also, maybe give yourself some time to move into the state of not knowing and loosen your egos grip on your current worldview. I just googled and found out that there exist a philosopher who proposed this named Kit Fine who called it fragmentalism which is fitting. However, it seems he did not find the fragments.

THE ANSWER

1. At the beginning there was only the Absolute. It has infinite aspects but no differentiation between them.

2. Then, suddenly, something separated itself from the absolute. This is the Fragment. 

3. This Thing must necessarily have at least these seven aspects of the Absolute: 

3.1. Impulse, Difference, Temporality, Spaciousness, Wholeness, Interaction, Simultaneity.

3.2. Proofs of 3. and 3.1 by contradiction:

5.1. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Impulse. If it didn't have Impulse, it would lack the necessary impulse to separate. Q.E.D.

5.2. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that Fragment does not have the aspect of Difference. Without Difference, separation is not possible. Q.E.D.

5.3 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Temporality. Without Temporality, the sequence "not separated, then separated" would not have been possible. Q.E.D.

5.4. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Spaciousness. Without Spaciousness, the Fragment would not have anywhere to separate into. Q.E.D.

5.5. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Wholeness. Without Wholeness, the will and the difference would not have anything to hold on to for the separation. Q.E.D.

5.6 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Interaction. Without Interaction, all the aspects of the absolute could not have interacted to help separate the Spirit. Q.E.D.

5.7 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Simultaneity. Without Simultaneity, all the aspects could not have interacted at the same time which is necessary, since no subset of the seven is able to make a separation as shown in the previous proofs. Q.E.D.

This seems to imply that reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness which is hella satisfying and just straight up combines all the existing respected metaphysics. So we have Buddha=Platon=Upanishads in one compact formula lol.

• Why fragment=idea. All 7 are pure concepts, yet they produce matter, since:
• Why fragment=matter. Contemplate why matter would not be able to exist without any one of these.
• Why fragment=spirit. The way I discovered the fragments, is not by observing matter but by observing consciousness and neurodiversity. All the neurodivergencies and all the personality structures seem to be a combination of these 7. I think it can be proven that there can be no mind outside these 7. Try to contemplate this. However, in contrast to matter, consciousness seems to be able to "turn off" these aspects and merge with the absolute, which is what enlightenment is.

I think one possible next move is to formulize it more narrowly into mathematics, but it might be the case that 1. 2. and 3. are axioms that can only be intuitively true. I will also research Kit Fine. If this is legit, we might have to spam him with emails lol.

Edited 4 hours ago by Cred

[integration journey]

Be careful with all-caps titles on here. It’s in the guidelines I think. 

Edited 4 hours ago by integration journey

[Hojo]

Maya says you exist cause someone measured you.

The Sanskrit term māyā (माया) is fundamentally related to measurement, often interpreted in philosophical contexts as "that which measures" "the act of measuring" or "the power to create form". While commonly translated as "illusion" in modern contexts, its roots are deeply tied to the concepts of defining, limiting, and giving shape to the boundless. 

To escape one must stop measuring. Metaphorically and physically. To create one must measure physically and metaphorically.

The random fragmentation could happen via measurement of the absolute.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo

[Cred]

@Hojo This is really cool I did not know this thanks a lot for sharing.

This seems notion perfectly supports my theory. (I'm aware of the danger of looking for confirmation instead of criticism)

According to ontomodality, any existing entity is well-defined with the respective amounts of each of the modes of being. If an entity has 0 of everything it is pure emptiness.

Btw. I think I have found an 8th one which is "Anticipation" (I think I will always try to spell them capital to show they are metaphysical principles)