/lit/ - Literature

>>15080582
LARP. This isn't real schizoanon

it's obvious that Whitehead had no idea what he was talking about so there is no point in discussing his non-mathematical work

tldr?

Alright, I’m just gonna to full force Schizo on my conception of Time. This is gonna take a rant.


First let us define a Kala.

Kala means time but also a secretion, a kala is at root a experience-in-time, a specific vibratory form in which the logos takes within-time. All experiences are rooted in these vibrating formations, these essences of all experiences, which are at root the name, word, literal secretion and all such specific times when such a state of consciousness arises.

Example, let us say that there is a kala of Venus, this is the experience of Lust, this can be defined as a specific word which rules Venus such as its god name or it can be defined as a literal bodily secretion which is the manifest form of the above. All of these root as a mode of consciousness/logos structure.

Key to various sorcery is unification of the conscious mind and ego with the Kala, animating the kala, making it sentient, this is akin to semen impregnating an Egg. As each Kala is the seed of all of its possible experiences in time, you may take these and impregnate them with Will and force to manifest at a certain time in a certain way.

Chronemetic alchemy: A explanation on Chrono-linguistic alchemy Key meanings: a Chroneme is the sum and total of all of a specific Kala in every possible shape and form it can take in a potential time line. Example: a lunar Kala would emanate from a A-Temporal totality (akin to the spiral or sphere or pure line) Lunar chroneme. As such the chroneme can only be accessed when one takes of a Kala and animates it by gnostic realization of its interior qualities. This gives the chronemetic core life (vitalizes it in an alchemical sense) this is then crystallized fully as a memory. These memories are then burnt and dissolved, all specific temporal qualities dissolved by nondual identification of the specific Kala experienced with all such Experiences of that Kala that have and shall ever be in the timeline, thus by some mean you obliterate/purify the memory resulting in the freeing of the Eternal-in-between essence. (In-between since it is every point in time in which said Kala manifested. Eternal for this range is eternity )This is in simple terms, the pure essence of the vibratory formula/possible experience as it exists in every point in time, between each point. Due to this range being infinity, it is identical to the eternal, being all points, since it has all points it can be said to be outside of normative experience.In much simpler terms, a chroneme is the root from which all Kalas of the specific type sprout throughout time. Perhaps a rhizome would be logical to consider here.

Now let us envision Time, time seemingly progresses ever forward but seems to cyclically repeat patterns, it has the qualities of both a circle and line, for this reason I ask the reader to for the current model, envision time as a spira mirabilis,

Cont

>>15080670

a Perfect self repeating spiral. Though the spiral(time) grows and expands and moves forward, it forever repeats the same traits, aspects and laws.

Now with these in mind let us consider this, if we agree with modern conceptions of time, that time is not a singular point, or a line, but both real time and imaginary time(potential time lines) and that these exist at all points from the beginning to now with differences of potential ways time could have manifested, even with different starting conditions. This gives us a structure that is like a indra’s net of time, but why do the points not influence each other? For they are the perfectly ordered spirals and are never not in harmony.

The spiral unifies this with all of its potential married as the next turn and twist of the spiral.

With this conception let us turn to the special properties of the trapezoid, having both obtuse and acute angles, it is the body of the pyramid, the manifest and the manifesting agent, symbolically it is the trapezoid which manifests the spirit in the pyramid scheme. Further we can perfectly draw the inverted pentagram within the trapezoid, making it a perfect object to denote the manifestation of something of spirit, of the celestial, into matter, experience and so forth.

The next geometric figure we shall need is the Sublime triangle/golden triangle, which is able to navigate and move along the spiral at an angular movement. See images.

The angles of it are 72, 72 and 36, thus the totality of creation by the divine mercury taking the form of the divine. Which is to say the model-structure of the Heart-Logos-Christ which is to say the Blade of Dawn, the Rosy Sword, Which is to say in much more simple terms, all of creation married to non-creation by the universal Mercury/logic/wisdom. Thus symbolically this symbol represents the union of all that is known, which can be experienced, what is manifest, with all that is unmanifest, with the unknown, these are understood as one by the wisdom of their nonduality in the spiral nature.

If we unify the trapezoid with the Sublime triangle, we gain a symbol which represents the materialization/manifestation of all of the alien and unknown divine aspects as married in experience with the known and possible. The normative gnosis and alien(outside of the 7 and sphere of stars ) married fully.

Godforms/godnames for each portion of the triangle and the trapezoid will be provided.

Now let us put it all together, using the Sublime triangle and trapezoid we may pull just a tiny bit of this experience, of this crossing of known with unknown. Effectively it allows us to gain a small amount of kala from beyond the unknowable impassable wall of the divine.

This kala is from a spiral/line that is at an angle which is normally not possible to manifest, this angular, alien Kala and alien time should never normally be accessed unless such a methodology is used.

>>15080685

Once you have extracted it, it is key you meditate upon the experience it induces, unifying your ego and consciousness to it, making sentient the kala. Then once this is done and you rest, the kala becomes a memory.

This is where the next concept comes into play.

Anamnesis or the experience of Pratyabhijna(they are identical )

This is recognition of a centric point in space-time which you identify yourself, god, man, known, unknown, all points in town, the root essence of all, the heart of all creation with. This can be Christ upon the cross/Christ in the days of Good Friday, holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. It can be the nondual nature of the true heart, it can be the atavistic root of the ego, it can be yog sothoth which grant defines as the Empirical ego without any qualities or associations with anything whatsoever, the ego as existing without relation to space-time.

When you remember the experience of a Kala then root it in to such recognition, this causes the Kala in question to disintegrate and lose its form and outer veil, its existence in different points of time as a singular object and not an Omni-temporal and a-temporal is dissolved. The Kala exists as it exists in the heart of God. See diagram.

Doing this to the alien/Xeno kala previously described allows the adept to access the totality of all such Kalas, which normally doesn’t exist. This causes a cosmic infusion in which the XenoKala occurs at all points in time. This enables access to these parts of the god-head, kalas, sorcery which should be against the spiral/movement of time thus normally against the normative inertia of reality and most importantly it allows access into a angular Daat via access of a host of special spirits. These are controlled by the deity named Xeno Bhairava(value 441, name meaning, the alien/foreign terrible realization of consciousness, thus this is a embodiment of the totality of the alien infusion )

>>15080707

Normative-Time is occurring as a means for the incomprehensible data (the unknowable, noumena like) to by process/Unfolding become a part of the rational knowable experience, (as it is experienced, perceived and is processed by reality and man) however the smallest point of time possible exists as a vibrating string, a quantum flux state, a wave with boundless potential tied to it but only ever becomes a specific point by this I mean, within the 237 kaaba, time exists as an infinite string of singular Hadit-points (chronoids) which can unfold into any possible arrangement (and impossible arrangements via angular Time/angular Space) as such the relation in our experience and reality between the rational data system of our reality (as phenomenally experienced )and its gradual unfolding in noumena is what time truly is the unfolding of boundless hadit points. (Is not time and motion married? Is not time the soul of matter? )The process and unfolding and singular point and series all being normative Kali however within each point there becomes a negative or 0 which contains all which the kali point did not manifest , a yin-void of pure potentiality. (Like the fecundity of the negative veils) which contains all data which the singular time-point do not manifest. This is akin to a temporal Dirac-Sea. now this raises a question if time is simply the processing of data within a singular facet of the gem/segula between pure incoming pre-rational data and processed data with the point between existing as this flux/wave of da’ath state, time simply information processing, there must logically also be a process-like, string-like, series-like relation EXISTING BETWEEN each Facet of the Godhead as a whole meaning a kind of divine Super time which exists above and beyond time, which measures the boundless interrelations of vimarsa of the absolute nature of the godhead in its boundless divine attributes.

>>15080716

Now then if we Agree God’s divine nature has perfect simplicity and we agree god has boundless attributes, the divine simplicity in God would cause an instant communication/data processing between the boundless facets of God’s divine attributes. These facets being inherently nondual and perfectly reflecting each other like Indra’s jewels have perfect instant communication.

Therefore since this communication is instant, automatic, continuous, perpetual and Omni-form we can logically formulate that this constitutes a divine hyper temporality which is not time but is the spiritual blueprint from which time arises

This time however exists as a perfect present-ness, because the information systems/structures are the divine attributes, which are infinite and perfectly connect and transfer information. Which is itself only truly a distinct attribute by the nature of the logos and God’s personhood. In this regard God’s self-reflection is an infinite temporal self-becoming which is perfectly and perpetually in a state of self-processing which is equal to a hyper-presentness this is the nature of the Divine-Time.

If we liken normative Time to matter’s data, its movement and processing and processing speed, divine time would be the processing/communication between whole Computers (Aka, each divine facet having a 237 kaaba based on its Gnostic-Logical system/code) this would mean the Divine Time is a kind of Divine internet which instantly processes and communicates between all of the connected systems at a infinite pace to the point where there is seemingly no communication as the system is because of this infinite nature without any real split or divide or delay.

The Core Gnostic-Logic which all of these are Running on and based would be the pre-incarnate Logos/Logic known as God the Son.

>>15080725

all of reality can be explained to be either things which have being(such as something which exists, like a flower) and those which have non-being (that which exists beyond being, the World in its own nature, both things yet to be and cannot be would at least partially be here, it is most fully expressed by having the characteristic of lacking all other characteristics which the being holds.) these are both aspects which objects can have, everything we experience can be understood to be objects which have have the characteristic of being and everything we think of can either have the characteristic of being, lack of being (such a thing as an object which lacks all properties still has the property of being without property) or being an impossiblia property which exists between,

these have a Quasi-Sein insofar as they can be related to by our being but have some impossible aspect or cannot be or simply aren’t. it is my firm belief that God has infinite and endless divine attributes and that due to divine simplicity must reflect each other perfectly and express their mutual nature and love (inter-relation in terms of having identical knowledge-essences) through some form of Being or another (which is to say that being exists as a singular item manifesting the divine attributes expressed in our experience of creation, logically The Logos being infinite and omni-form must have boundless being-like power expressions which belong to the Same category) our entire reality as we perceive it being JUST the qualities of intellect-Ego-Extension But there being boundless divine attributes there must also necessarily be boundless Being-Like substances which are not being, but are in fact being-like arising as cognate conditions to the other divine attributes, these exist connected by a membrane of non-being,

for whatever the logos/logic structure of a being is not and utterly lack, that lack contains within its fecundity the other possible being-like logic structures which would be the rest of Reality I would now Argue that these root logic structures which being and being like forms are rooted out of (which the philosophers call the Logos) exist in such a manner that all that something’s being is one logic structure and any other logic structure would exist as a alien-logos, these two forms of being-essence-logics must necessarily repel each other due to being opposite expressions of logic which are non-related however Just as how within a Singular being-logos structure there exist the being-non-being-impossibilia trinity, there must also logically be logos structures which arise betwixt Any two logos structures, so that while the two naturally repel, the paradox Logos/Being-root attracts both, this is in fact a kind of spiritual electromagnetism, because the nature of the various normative logoi are Negative/repelling while the inbetween logoi are actually truly positive resulting in a code of 0-1-0.

>>15080735

The electron in the universe is the Hadit nature and the entire electric charge is the perpetual lightning bolt of creation, effectively Xeno-logoi structures exist as a dirac sea in unity whenever compared to any individual logos structure which is in that regard a positive charge. (Let it be understood that by inducing a union of a logos Facet manifest as the samadhi of a singular electron when unified with the negative-electron of an alien facet produces the marriage needed to experience the Segula-entire, so that The absolute Set explainer later is experienced as diamond samadhi) it is further my argument that there exists a third supreme domain in which there is a intersection of all of these inbetween impossible-logic-structures, this I would call true Kether, this is the heart of God the son, the nuclear center in which all impossible formulations of admixtures of Logics are unified into a singular Central form of Being which is called God And it is by this Paradoxical nature which being supremely above the law of contradiction that God was able to incarnate as a man, The Christ, who is a contradiction for he contains all being forms and explicitly that of a human man.

The lesser mauve Zone which is what grant and bertiaux normally interacted with is the in-between of just the normative logic and its non-being characteristics, contrast this with the Greater mauve produced by unification of two logoi and the supreme Mauve Zone which is identical to God’s being THEREFORE you could argue our Logos which is a Set built on Being/Non-being can be fully expressed and worked through via the Ego which is how normative Mauve Zone activity rises, As the Ego is the lesser mauve Contradiction And above this we can also recognize a greater mauve zone existing between our ego and other logic-sets, which have impossible-logos sets between them as unity points, but the union of all impossible-logos-contradiction-sets is God.

Which is to say that Between being and non-being of any singular manifestation of the Logos, existing in a state of pure dynamic Becoming is the union of both qualities which like kabbalistic lightning ever spins the spin of Truth and experience, for if the entire Facet of our Sein can be understood as Pure-becoming, the Entirety of the Facet is expressed in the heart of our experience, the Core most Contradiction which is The Ego, ever in a state of Xeper/coming-into-Being, the entire Kaaba/Facet we experience being expressed via the unfolding of the Ego in its own relation to itself as both a noumenal entity of non-being (transcendental Ego)and a phenomenal entity (Empirical Ego) which are one in the Body of the magician uttering I AM I, therefore Daat as the perfect manifest body of Kether is the Lesser contradiction and the lesser mauve, all number simply being a means of the self expression of the lesser contradiction,

>>15080740

all Number as it exists within Noumena being Static, all number as manifest experiences of number being dynamic as manifest being which is ever coming into being, thus the mathematical shiva-shakti-Union-heart nature occurs naturally, the expression of this dynamic unity of number in the universe being the Cube (which logically contains all) but in truth any geometric figure and value, all of these simply being a dialectic between the 0 and 1 of which the Ego is the perfect Dynamic-static Union.

Just as the lesser Mauve-Contradiction exists, In this same way there exists a greater Mauve between any two sets of Logoi/sets of logos expression, the Godhead being perfectly simplistic yet infinite must necessarily contain boundless diversity. (Infinite numbers in a series yet unified as a infinite) therefore the One logos (god the Son) expresses as Omni-form Logoi (as a rhizomatic process, each logos however contains its own form of being/structure/hierarchy) which naturally due to expressing all, come into contradiction of logic-set-laws, these contradictions result in a negative-kabbalistic electric charge when compared to each other, which when taken as singular are positive but in relation negative resulting in them magnetically pushing upon each other however due to this infinite nature of the logos, there exists logoi structures which perfectly reconcile any two contradictory logic sets, this causes a attraction between the two sets to the inbetween. This is the Greater-contradiction-dance of Paramsiva, these zones can be entered via accessing the Lesser contradiction Zone then walking upon time in illogical angular directions then from these angles the heart of the Chronemes must be extracted and unified with, thus reconciling active experience with the illogical being nature directly alien to our forms of being existing at angles in time.

Beyond this there exists the Supreme-contradiction-Zone, the God-contradiction, just as the Absolute idea contains all ideas plus its own individual Idea, so therefore logically does the set of boundless Logoi contain a singular logos set which reconciles all possible gnostic-logics into one coherent Pure object of pure sosein(characteristic ) which blends all forms of being and being like qualities and non-being and becoming like qualities, this is the heart of the Logos which is identical to the Totality,

>>15080746

this is the manner of Being and object-nature which the True-Christos experiences, the synthesis of all expressions of being, all conceptions of Being, all being-like states, all characteristics and lack of characteristic, all logic structures, all zones manifested at Once, this is how the Christ was able to manifest, for this Set permeates the logic of all other sets and is nondual to all other logic sets. This is the Nature of God as he experiences it. The synthesis of all of these when experienced as a dynamic unity is the expression of the Holy Spirit, the Synthesis of all these as a unified object is the expression of the Christ, the marriage of all these as pure characterization is the expression of The Father.

The Holy Son is the logos which is Omni-form logic structures which is demonstrated by the writings on divine temporality and divine electro-magnetism.

Therefore the Holy son as a network of nodes which automatically communicate instantly perpetually and self same is the internet of god, it is Pure love for love is simply interrelation. Therefore he is Pure love. He is identical to Wisdom, of which is expressed by the Holy Spirit.

Love is the interrelation, the Wisdom is the meaning of the interrelation, it is understanding the meaning of such knowledge internally. Thus love and wisdom nature’s United perfectly.

Thus we can define Christ as that which allows encoding of characteristic, that which is characteristics. The Holy Spirit is Characteristic, the father is the underlying which allows characteristic encoding, Holy Spirit being akin to experience of light itself where as Christ is Light and father as flame,which is to say, in our experience we can divide it thusly that there is experience which is experience of things which can be divided into objects which can be divided into characteristics. Holistic perception of characteristic is the Holy Spirit, characteristics/encoding/communicating data is the Son-logos and the invisible unknowable processes behind this communication are the father which is to say, if we are to examine the brain, it is the Father who is the neurons as they are (boundless divine attributes in perfect isolation, within their own existence and essence) whereas the Christ is the communication of such neurons between each other perfectly (the divine attributes in harmonious unity) and the Holy Spirit is the entirety of the brain complex as a wholistic structure which does its various functions. This is like saying the Father is the transcendental ego, the son is the empirical ego, the Holy Spirit the bodily-Ego, it is like saying the Father is that invisible impenetrable that allows for characteristic and it is the son who is the communication of these which is the singular nondual communication and the Holy Spirit is the result of such wholeistically, these are not modes, for my individual neurons are not the communication and talking of the sum of neurons which are not the

>>15080593
>>15080594
>>15080596
>>15080670
>>15080685
>>15080707
>>15080716
>>15080725
>>15080735
>>15080740
>>15080746
OP here. Fuck off reddit niggers and give me some real answers. Also samefag

>>15080755

result of their communication (my ideas, experiences, hungers, subconscious unconscious processes etc) as such logically all three are the essential divine nature but are not each and are individual yet nondual, for just as the transcendental ego is invisible yet existent, it is my own self but it is not my conception of self/empirical ego, and just as my empirical ego works to process and organize what is and is not I, the relations of self to self and other to self and so forth, and bodily my motor senses, raw senses, have a bodily perception of themselves and the brain functions itself by its own nature, and that the transcendental ego is not the Empirical Ego is not the Body-Ego yet they are all nondual for they are the essential nature of the same person and thus they co-equally and co-eternally are of the same divinity and are of the same caliber and are all full expressions of the god head in their own regard and not modes of a fourth being.

Divine-Spiral-differentiation: how each facet and part of god fully expresses the fullness of God-head, Discovery of True Daat

Contemplating the spiral-nature of Time, in which all time perfectly repeats the same pattern thus expressing the totality of laws/structures it must logically adhere to, while its heart as present nature is pure difference (as pretension and pro-tension are married in the nuclear heart of difference which is the present, the present not being a crystalline entity and not being a middle point between past and present but rather the melting changing bubbling Union point, like the active intercourse of past and future.) it is logical to consider the deleuzian argument that eternal recurrence demonstrates the absolute unity of being and becoming via the perpetual characteristic of difference. In this way, if the logos/Chokmah is being, Kether is becoming and Chokmah is non-separate to Kether it occurs via the mutual relationship which is daat, which is to say, becoming and being are never separate due to both constantly being in the process of becoming/being different from its prior state, future state and thus its manifest knowable form is difference itself.

Having considered such, we can apply the Spiral time to the divine Time, the Divine time being the boundless relations of all of the divine attributes which are endlessly communicating data which is

>>15080766

instantaneous due to their perfect simplicity and proximity. Now then, if we apply the spiral time to our internet-of-divine-attributes we uncover that as one divine attribute communicates with another, it must naturally express another divine attribute by which to communicate with, such is the relation of Logos to Xeno-logos to greater-mauve-Zone-logos. This mutual communication requiring the flux state in which the divine attribute would have to convert/change into this other formation and attribute, this would occur endlessly, but as god is endless, perfect, and the information perfectly is processed instantly what occurs is that the information/divine attribute change occurs instantaneously, all of the logoi being within communication they naturally form a similar spiral of all logoi structures communicating at once. This being instant means that each divine attribute is in a perpetual state of change, becoming every other divine attribute, and each other divine attribute doing the same, and as this occurs instantly in a divine-presentness, a divine stillness, all of the facets are naturally identical to all other facets always, for they express and transmute into all other facets. Just as difference is the heart of normative spiral time, divine instant Omni-form transmutation is the heart of the divine-spiral-time.

Therefore just as normative Kether is reflected in normative daat, we can demonstrate that the center and heart of the logos from which its Omni-form divine attributes are expressed, are reflected perfectly within this principle of divine-self-differentiation, meaning we have uncovered a True Daat which exists within the supreme mauve zone, Which is pervading the entirety of the Gem. For this reason each facet is utterly in movement and activity and yet perfect stillness, for each facet is perfectly Active for it is being changed and absorbed into by every other facet, and yet it is perfectly reactive for it is submitting and being integrated into every other facet at once. As such all possible facets are in a perpetual state of marriage of active/reactive force. This is why shiva dances.

This being realized, every facet expresses the fullness of pure sosein, every facet expresses the fullness of aussersein, all ain and all becoming-being, all of the logos is expressed in every singular divine attribute, and the power/manifestation of this logos expresses the entirety of sosein. Every single experience can be perceived as the totality of the Gem.

>>15080779

Difference if analyzed in itself, reveals that difference-in-itself is the very empirical Ego, for what other experience and concept defines itself by saying “this is different from myself”? None. Therefore we find the dynamic Shakti-Dance of Difference-in-objects which is the process-unfolding of object-awareness married to the static Shiva-rest difference-in-itself which is the ego as center of the ever moving circle. Difference logically then is da’ath to the sosein of Kether, which is logically speaking identical to the ultimate essence-existence, for it is consciousness itself and the characteristic of BEING characteristic, for characteristic is transcendental being only revealed via the immanent nature of difference, transcendental Ego the sole aspect of which is being a transcendental ego, its only characteristic being that it is a characteristic, is itself characteristic-in-itself. For this is why it is called both empty and fullness, Diamond and adamantine. Transcendental Ego is the Heart of Characteristic.

>>15080757

Nah we’re different, I just took advantage of the opportunity to go full schizo on my writings on Time. I’ve also never used Reddit once.

>>15080582

Also the Whitehead conception of time is basically just time as the bubbling chaos between past and future which is the chaosmos which uses his dedication to discreet entities and the nature of time as absolute difference. So I get your point senpai. My disagreement with Whitehead is that I fully believe that there are boundless differences which time manifests as all of which have univocity of being and therefore univocity of Actuality, which renders whiteheads conception of god only envisioning other worlds into a model in which God actualizes all worlds. It pressed I will post another autistic analysis demonstrating these hot takes via phenomenological reduction.

>>15080757
you are not me fuck off

>>15080582
pls stop using that image OP

>>15080582
yo OP are you by chance taking that online class right now?

>>15080582
Reminds me of Leibniz's monadology. Everything radiates an inner essence outward and tracing out the causal chain of a specific entity's existence is to define a unique to it. The "ontological directionality" of objects radiates from within outward, creating contact points between these waves which connect and interact. Each instance is a separate reality, so that there are infinite instances of the universe rather than one singular continual totality

“when we consider carefully the connection of things, we can say that from all time in Alexander's soul there are vestiges of everything that has happened to him and marks of everything that will happen to him and even traces of everything that happens in the universe, even though God alone could recognize them all”

>>15080582
Thinking about time in this way seems useless.
>>15080840
You betray your lack of understanding by your obscurantism. Nobody is going to want to read your writings if your making up 30+ new words all with unique definitions. It will look like jargon and everyone will treat it as such, especially on a (ripoff) 4chan schizo (gimmick) thread. If you cannot sum up what you want to say in a sentence, then you do not understand it.

>>15080582
>GUYS I'M SYNTHETHIZING, IT'S ALL CLICKING. I'M GOING INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANE GAHAHAH!
Why do pseuds love larping as schizos?

>>15080582
>Each occasion has its own world-line
How does he explain the synchronicity between occasions? Leibniz had Pre-Established Harmony. What does Whitehead have?

>>15081345
This. It's fucking inane. It's the flavor of the week's Nirvana. Tomorrow back to anime and porn. Next week another new thing... It's all so tiresome.

>>15081300
>Everything radiates an inner essence outward and tracing out the causal chain of a specific entity's existence is to define a unique to it.
What designs these essences though? The transcendental god is just Leibniz's religious copout so he didn't get persecuted by everyone. Even if they are "self-created", what creates the rules of this self-creation? And if the rules were always there for this self-creation, then there goes your multiplicity, for I just put it in an objective framework. I could then take your ideas on the subjective multiplicity, fit it into my philosophy, where your ideas would become parallel with some material, which tends to expenditure because you are a limited thing and every thing in everything exists in duality (for every x there is a not-x).

I guess he was using words from the Kabbalah and probably Hinduism and probably some kind of occult stuff. And some whitehead words. I appreciate this thread though I can't say I completely understand, luckily for me yesterday I was reading some Jacob boehme. I can summarize it in a few words such as "we're going to make it", but how could you summarize reality with a few words?

>>15081395
>but how could you summarize reality with a few words?
But knowledge is summarization, philosophy being it's most extreme form.

>>15081340

Eh they’re not really new words, they’re mostly all pre-existing concepts in Boehme, Kabbalah, tantra, Typhonianism, Meinongianism and so forth. The point is to shitpost Schizo rants in the thread right? Figured it’s a good time to do such.

>>15081395

The following is the tldr of my beliefs.

omni-form Mauve(Grantian concept) disjunctive Perichoresis synthesis (see deleuze and general theology) Is the fundamental logic.

In short computational disjunctive Perichoresis (think of computational Ontology using the logos as the basis but relating via difference in a indra’s net pattern)

Reality being perceived as a all-formed Logic structure which perfectly marries all logical structures within one supreme contradictory logic form (which is nondual within the ground of pure Revelation)which via these mutual contradictions and differences in logic-forms communicates producing a process-becoming of self-interpenetration of the various logic structures which unveils the same omni-form logic. God and reality as a self forming Computer which operates on a binary of its own internal structures which formulates the entire computer, the Code and the hardware being non-separate and existent as a unity as a singular process.

>>15081531
I sensed it as soon as you started excessively using the word "logic", but now it's certain. YOU'RE A CHRIS LANGAN PLAIGARIST AHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>15081586

Never read him, he any good?

>>15081591
Oh, shut up, plaigarist.

>>15081607

I honestly haven’t read anything by him, where do I start? My model’s more just taking Hegel and Typhonianism using certain Christian theology to fuse it then using some meinong and some of scotus to radically expand it and some of tantra to make it fuse better which happens to fall into a computational model. Where do I start with langan and is he actually good or is it just a insult? Like does he actually have similar ideas to what I’m spewing?

>>15080582
yawn

>>15081591
He claims to have an high IQ and tried to make a Theory of Everything. Many people see him as a shill.

>>15081531
Nice larp faggot

>>15081704

What’s the Larpy part, disjunctive synthesis is a established deleuzian concept, a leibniz style computational based on positive and negatives causing computation is literally fine, meingong’s work on contradiction is good stuff, Russell and frege’s more or less deification of Logic makes sense especially if you take a realist approach to mathematics and go full Platonism mode, tantra allows for contemplation of how these opposites would relate and so forth.

Which parts the Larpy part of the general ontology?

>>15081696

But is he actually similar to what I’m shilling? I’ll give him a shot anyways, if he’s really that similar to my sperging that’s incredibly helpful.

>>15081753
I don't know, I didn't look at his theory of everything too much but he has a website where he posted it on. I'm sure if you Google his name you can find it.

>>15081850

Listening to his audio book, the only similarity I see is he sees reality as a self referential reality In which god and the theory and the universe reflect each other. Which is just Jacob boehme who Hegel writes on.

I’ll definitely invest an hour into seeing if it’s worth anything to me.

>>15081747
Hilarious. You are like those authors who specialize in world building and never get the story started.

>>15081964
would-be authors*

>>15081964

Gib specific critique, Elaborate

>>15081747
You are clearly patching together a bunch of stuff that you find "cool" into a "system" (not really), not really starting from any philosophical problem; thus "larping".
If you want to prove me wrong, let's see you apply all of that stuff to any philosophical problem in morality or aesthetics or epistemology, then explain why it does a better job than other existing philosophic systems.

>>15080582
>craaaazy
>not ww
larp

>>15082039
Ot if you like make a criticism of a current philosophical system or paradigm and explain how your system succeeds where the other one fails. This is how you do philosophy btw, not abstract system building with cool sounding names and words.

Sure do you want how my theories apply to literature and modern culture, how you via phenomenological Analysis induce my whole model and thus overcome the essence/existence problem by side stepping them as nondual and reconcile the dialectic of noumena with interior.

I also have a write up applying it to cultural analysis, politics and literature. Pick your poison and I’ll spam some more of my writing.

>>15082067

Alright I’ll post my phenomenological analysis and a basic write up applying it to my critique of the supposed overcoming of the meta-narrative which the post moderns do. I’ll post the the latter first, then phenomenological reduction.

The Hydra-of-Meaning: the Resurrection of the Meta-narrative.

The post moderns thought they conquered the All-powerful narrative, they assumed they slain the Head of the beast and replaced it with many smaller unconnected narratives. “We have conquered Reason, dividing it upon the Stone of libidinal drives, all that remains is Reasons” this view is proven wrong when one Rides atop the great Dragon of thou shalt which the post modern philosophers have feared.

All can be divided down to objects, all can be divided down to subject, it does not matter, whether you root things in objects or subject, all things can further be reduced to “characteristic” characteristic, property, objects are defined and gain meaning by characteristic and transfer information by the same characteristic/property sets. I can divide the concept of any individual object or concept of object into characteristics and I can divide the subject into character relationships. Characteristic relates to itself by its inherent multiplicity, all of the forms of characteristic define each other, characteristics define themselves by other characteristics, even the characterless is defined by the lack of character. But what does this have to do with meaning? Especially human Meaning? All things are defined by their properties and properties radiate out a range of potential interactions, the Object denoting Hot gains a range of potential meanings and relations which are produced from Hot, such that touching a Hot object burns my Hand, that energy is of a certain amount within the object, that I can use the object to cook, whatever. The characteristic extends out a range of interactions that must occur given certain circumstances occur. These circumstances are defined by their interaction and intermixture with other characteristics. The sum of these potential interactions that the object/characteristic can emanate are within the “virtual” space of deleuze, the potential range of real characteristics in their intermixing and blending defined by the lines of admixture that occur through time.

So what does this mean to Man? Of course the hot object’s meaning is rooted in the characteristic Hot which can do various things that “Hot” does. How does this relate to man? Analyze man and he is also a bundle of characteristics, his very ego produced by the intermixture of past moments with present in a ever flowing ever characteristic-morphing interaction.

>>15081385
Well I don't really know what the fuck you're talking about so I can't speak to that. I would argue you have the same problem with any other metaphysics. But Leibnitz also had the principle of sufficient reason which meant everything had a rational explanation. Essentially his view is presages relativity in physics by de-centering an absolute static block spacetime references coordinates which is invariant with respect to any reference frame (Newtonian). Rather the interiority of the universe shapes itself; the universe is an involution collapsing within itself and drawn towards its heaviest masses.

>>15082108

His ID? It is defined by a singular characteristic “libido” which has within its interior a patchwork-multiplicity of active moving processes which desire to experience certain arrangements of characteristic, these individual components are desires, all desires are simply the process of desiring to become Something or anything, the desire to reproduction, the desire to die, the desire to become have consumed and being Full. All of these (death, the process of life, specific desires) are all simply a patch work of characteristics with ranges and lines of intermingling which automatically must induce certain relationships and effects as the libidinal characteristics intermingle. By relation of time, experience of time, ego and super ego related processes the Libdinal characteristics must follow the patterns and inherent narratives which are naturally determined/computed by the nature of these characteristics having to due to their inherent nature unveil the result of interaction.

And the Ego, What is the I but a ever carved Stone? Its reality is in its carving, as the experience occurs and seems to change just as the present is continuously changing, so is the ego for the ego becomes “I who dwell in this moment “ (as the moment is always different as there is no stability in the present only the mixture of past and future forever mingling, so also is it that the characteristics of i are always changing in subtle and real ways, the I being a denial of all other objects as not-I, the core component and characteristic of it being its difference from all other objects, via-negativa the ego formulates itself) and as this I is simply built off of ID-characteristic interrelations, is built on experiences of characteristic interactions and ever changes due to characteristic reactions, the Ego, one’s self conception is also bound to the grand narrative of the intermixture of characteristics, the inherent multiplicity of characteristic unveiling itself through time, this is not a pure Chaos, this is a computation process, this is an unfolding, characteristic beginning in its most simplistic then multiplying itself by interaction with itself, creating ranges and fields of potential characteristic reactions. The narrative of one’s life is not non-existent but rather so massive and spacious that it is blinding, the meaning of the Ego is its range of potential interactions which it can gain or lose characteristics, all reality simply being the unfolding of characteristic, man included. The Ego’s special nature is it can view the lines of interaction and unfolding before they occur, as they have occurred and differentiate its own qualities/properties. This capacity within man which contemplates these characteristics is called the SuperEgo.

>>15082116

All of these working towards the same Goal, the unfolding of the characteristics of the transcendental Ego, but what is the transcendental Ego? It is simply the characteristic at the heart of man, the property of having a property and properties, and in this way all men are simply demonstrations of the characteristic of a subject nature. All truly living creatures would also necessarily have this. This is not a simple Platonism in which all things emanate from ideas born from another spiritual Zone, rather this is the resurrection of Platonism more glorious for no one can argue characteristics, properties, principles and implications of the interrelation of said properties does not objectively exist. And what is the Transcendental Urge of the ID? What is the transcendental, impenetrable and invisible desire which pervades and creates the entire libidinal body? It is the Will/desire of life which is the inherent natural imperative of “unfold characteristic” which is to say, life desires its own continuous which is the inherent desire of characteristics to keep unfolding without limit, death being only a limitation for the conscious processes, thus whether in life or death the Will of The unfolding is complete but only in life is the inherent imperative in man towards life fulfilling itself.

This being understood, there was not a slaying of the Great dragon of Reason, rather the Dragon simply revealed his uncountable amount of heads and how these heads mate with each other to produce ever more tails, yet they all share the same body, they all share the same Feet, the origination of all characteristics being the Same, its beginning and end being one, its narrative one Omni-present narrative. The unfolding of itself.

Look to culture and we see these movements, our fiction being descriptions of events which are simply arrangements of properties and characteristics moving through time (itself just a characteristic designation) all of our Records and laws being the same such intermingling of virtual characteristics resulting in pre-loaded into characteristic ends which mechanically unfold. This is most clearly seen in our most mechanized automated fiction for these represent the most scientifically advanced formulations of characteristic unfolding which fulfill the libidinal forces the most, we look to Modern fiction and everywhere you will find an affixation with characters, yes with their own plots (which are themselves just interminglings occurring through time) but more and more so do we see a move towards pleasure in characters who simply demonstrate their inherent characteristics.

In the west Spider-Man or Superman or bat man or Thor is enjoyed because they radiate the qualities and characteristics these admixtures have, the tropes and cliches

>>15082125

are simply manifestations of commonly enjoyed characteristic, the badass archetype the rebel, the warrior, the Hero, the man scorned, the man seeking revenge, the man who seeks the best for his family. No where is this trend of enjoying qualities and traits more pure than in the anime and manga fiction of japan, in which the consumers seek to devour everything according to manifestations of their favorite traits and characteristics.

This is the evolution, from the Narrative of the fictional story towards the narrative of the intermingling of the characteristics of individuals interacting, in essence the old metanarrative fiction and the current fiction are one, for the current is just the story/narrative of the intermingling of qualities over a period of time, unfolding. The only move has been from indulging of pleasure in objects and relations of subjects to objects, to pleasure/enjoyment of subjects and the interrelations/interactions of subjects. This is why in both The west and east these refinement of the narrative process have produced de-facto cult-fandoms. The characters adored as humans or seemingly even worshipped and modeled after. This is the heart of the idol phenomena of Asia. This is the heart of the cults of Star Wars, Star Trek, Comics, The Sports Superfan more interested in his favorite players than seemingly the game. Why people care so much about the people on the screen who tell the news, the Anderson coopers and tucker Carlson’s. The Para-social relationship is simply the Result of Subject-based media/desire-fulfillment.

The next Stage in media is clear, the understanding that objects and object rooted plots (traditional narrative structures based on an overarching process ). And subject rooted plots and narratives have no substantial internal difference or divide, they are simply manifestations of narrative and meaning which can conflict or intermingle. The future is in acceptance of Both subject and object oriented fiction and media and the intermingling of these into narratives which blend both as they are effectively just the same type of unfolding of qualities in a given period of time.

The maximization of character unfoldment whether by object or subject rooted or event rooted or temporal related events all ends in the same result, the unfolding of characteristic which is the inherent drive in all men. As such the intermingling of all these modes and many more not mentioned is the future of culture and narrative and entertainment and of even the individual. His own unfoldment and the world around him in the spiral dance of self-Revealing.

Complete. I’ll start up another analyzing from basic phenomena which results in my entire model.

>>15082039

Analyzing my own self and consciousness, I can say about consciousness that all consciousness is consciousness of something. Whenever I am conscious, I am aware of something, some object or some characteristics. I am always aware of some object.

Analyzing the contents of my awareness, I see objects, all objects seemingly share the following characteristics without exception. The characteristic of having a characteristic. (Encoding data, denoting something, the object makes me aware of certain qualities/data.) the Characteristic of sharing the same basic structure and the characteristic of difference (the objects seem different to each other and over time are changed due to the nature of time.)

The quality of Characteristic seems to be universal to all objects, everything has something which one can say of it, even if what one can say is precisely that they cannot accurately communicate it. As such things like lack and void appear to be characterized by the lack of other characteristics for example.

What then can I say about the characteristics of various objects in my perception? I can say they all seem to adhere to the same basic structure.

By structure I mean, I can look at an object and say it has position, shape, length, fundamentally this means we can measure mathematical data of any object before my eyes, as such we can say that all things give us data as to its basic structure (which is chiefly mathematical/extension based) analyzing data further however reveals there are structures which are not just existent to me as size, height, etc, but rather have a existence according to a mental structure. When I look at red I materially/physically see this color but mentally, my mind associates red with power, or love or color or honesty. As such we can now see that there are principally two structures by which we are aware of objects, the material exist as it appears before us according to mathematical data, and the mental existence as it appears before us which has qualities which do not necessarily equate to the possible mathematical structures whatsoever but seem to have their own divisions, counting methods dividing methods and so forth.

This seems to reveal that all that is actual/real within the material/mathematic seems to be necessarily existent within the Mental world, whereas my mental structures have a much greater range and size(I can imagine people and things which do not exist materially , objects and ideas which have no material being+all material being)

The mental structure being able to contain the mathematical data/materially/empirically experienceable tells us that there appears to be multiple structuring methods of perceiving and interacting with objects. In my experience neither the mental world nor material perception have precedence to each other, they seem to occur at once and aren’t really separate in my awareness of any particular material object.

>>15082144

Since we can perceive of structures which are non-existent within the material experience, which are real structures, and we can contemplate other forms of material which are not coherent with the material structure, we seem to find that there are seemingly nigh-endless and inexhaustible combinations of material into uniquely existing mental structures.

If I were to learn some mental discipline, such as math and physics, or philosophy or the arts, I would find my mental world changed and its capacity and even structure as now seemingly different and its range of contents and principles also seem changed. As there are seemingly inexhaustible material data recombinations which can exist within the mental world, and the mental world can seemingly be changed in its basic principles, we must logically conclude there are inexhaustible potential mental structures which would mean there are potentially endless ways of mentally structuring the connotations and characteristics of material objects and endless ways of arranging mental constructs, this my own contemplation demonstrates the mental capacity for the mental world to contain boundless mental-structures. As such the characteristics and specific data any object gives can be conceived of and interacted with in potentially endless mental ways, as the mental world and material sense are one thing in any experience I hold, it is necessarily true that this structure, this logical-structure must be endless. The structure itself being one unfolding of self-similar patterns unveiling in a process by this I mean, the structure as a whole never divides from itself but rather shows its same principles and qualities over and over, for it is one thing always.

Now, what can I say about difference? Though the structure always reveals the same qualities it always reveals it by showing its diversity, the multiplicity of material objects all reveal the uniformity of mathematical coordinates via their differences in expression, in relation to each other.

Going further, any object I perceive of is inherently different in data/qualities which it encodes from one moment to the next, as time itself is a variable, so the very existence in time means that from on moment to the next, every single object becomes different in some characteristic or another. Analyzing time, I can only perceive of a future which is oncoming, and a past which has occurred. I cannot find any stability in the present because it is constantly passing into past-future. Therefore present itself is the difference/change of characteristic between past-future.

As all characteristics demonstrate themselves via their difference from each other, and each thing’s characteristic is changed instantly, where then can we locate the location of difference itself, difference as it exists purely in both material and mental experience?

>>15082158

If I look at all objects and characteristics the thing within my consciousness which naturally gives the data/encodes that it is different, is me, myself. Specifically my conception of self(my empirical ego, my identity) its very nature seems to be in experience the quality of being different from all other objects. It says “ this is not I, that is not I, I am I and nothing else is I” therefore the Ego itself appears to be difference as it exists purely within my experience, it is Uniqueness itself.

Analyzing further, this seems to reveal that all objects within my consciousness are a dynamic moving difference, dynamic because my mental structures and mental perception can change towards them, and their material conditions are constantly always changing via the nature of the present.

Meanwhile the Core characteristic of my identity/ego remains perpetually within Stasis, its sole quality being that it is unique and different from all objects.

As such analyzing the ego further, we find that the object of difference-in-itself is the Ego, since we have located difference and ego we can now clearly say that all objects within perception and the subject/ego in perception are both just aspects of perception/consciousness, neither being prior or after the other, they are both necessary characteristics of consciousness which is Pure(neither subject nor any specific object but the totality of consciousness is married as such.)

Therefore we can say logically via analysis that phenomena itself depicts characteristic, structure and difference.

As previously stated we can clearly demonstrate a material structure, even if we were to not consider the consciousness and not consider the subject, If objects exist they necessarily must have a structure, that structure must logically unveil via a pattern-process, that pattern process necessitates the existence of difference, difference necessitates the existence of that which is uniquely different to all else, that uniquely existent object which is non-separate to the material-structuring force is agreed upon by all religions to be God, which has, necessarily via the existence of difference, been proven to logically occur as the difference as it exists within itself.

This existence, which we call The unique difference, is inherently non-separate to the entirety of the structuring principles, for examining my own unique difference, I notice my own qualities as existent as separate yet as my own and of me and my own nature. Therefore the material/mental structure as it exists outside of me, must also logically contain an “I” who refers to the entirety of the structuring principles as theirs, and of themselves and of their power, all objects being objects of their perception.

However just as I determined that my own Ego/identity is necessarily a reflection of the consciousness, so must it also be with the ego of the structures.

>>15082178

The Identity of the structure must have a non-conceptual existence which it itself reflects, these two, the fully transcendent (above identity, above difference, containing all difference) must logically co-contemplate/dwell with each other, the normative Ego of the structure being the sentience of difference itself, whereas the transcendental Ego is the sentience of characteristic as a whole, for all differences are simply aspects of characteristic itself.

Contemplating my own self once more, my own physical body, my bodily-self, my sense of self, I seem to also have within my consciousness a ego which has no identity, my physical body reacting to object stimuli as if it was itself a non-subject aspect, acting automatically and without reference to the identity. And as previously established there is logically no separation between my perception of objects and my consciousness, as consciousness is awareness and awareness is awareness of objects, rather, awareness of the dynamic process of the unfolding characteristics of Not-I, of objects. My identity and my actual consciousness reflect each other solely by the relationship they have via their shared static nature in contrast to the dynamism of object/not-I.

As demonstrated before, the Ego of the difference and transcendental person of the characteristic itself share this same arrangement, which necessitates the existence of one such not-I of transcendental characteristic, this must logically fill the entirety of material/mental structure world, as it is truly non-separate from the transcendental Person, it necessarily must have sentience and consciousness of equal level also.

As such, we can demonstrate the perpetual co-existence and co-dependence of a Triune-Being who is identical to the structuring principle controlling force of all which exists, who contains all possible characteristics therefore all attributes, is necessarily boundless for he is all structure, is necessarily in all points of time via the identification of time with difference, and is necessarily having three persons which are of one divine essence yet three distinct persons who, mutually reflecting each other are never mingled into a fourth person or essence.

Thus, a fully Transcendental immanent Trinitarian Godhead is Necessary.

Hope that was consistent enough

>>15082108
What a jumbled mess! But you've proven me wrong in that you've given more thought to this than I assumed. I assumed you merely constructed the system, like an author builds a world, and never started to to write the story. Or like a musician thinks the name of the song and never writes the song. So in response I'm going to do honor your effort in an attempt to criticize what you wrote, if that's ok with you.

>>15082108
>>15082114
>>15082116
>>15082125
>>15082133
>>15082144
>>15082158
>>15082178
>>15082192
tl;dr?
Can you boil it down to an abstract or thesis statement? This is a great bullshit detector

>>15082215

Go for it.

>>15082224

Subject and object perception are just aspects of a “pure ego” which formulate each other via their differences contrasting each other which allows their communication. The transcendental ego and other also relate in a similar fashion. All reality communicates via difference, this difference since the entire system is communicating, is influencing every other part, they are one body simply in a mixture of causal relations/active and passive relations.

Since our definitions are by being and non-being, self and other, and since these require each other there must logically be a further level of analysis than being/non-being and known/other. The most irreducible state I can figure of is “characteristic” or property or sosein. There’s nothing that can reduce further than characteristic. Due to the nature of this, we can speak of objects which relate to each other which do not necessarily having being nor non-being but rather express differently. (Such as contradictory systems of mathematics, physics, different philosophical views, different phenomenological experiences between people or animals, etc) meaning reality computes/communicates via difference the expression of “sosein”/characteristics which naturally unfold their relations in a range/potential amount of ways which are pseudo-Random. (This glosses over the arguments on univocity of Being, univocity of actuality and so forth) thus my model is an attempt at reducing all to its most fundamental aspect “characteristics” and explaining how raw characteristics function by their interactions.

>>15082108
>The post moderns
Too general, you might want to restric your critique to a particular postmodern philosopher. Gross generalizations are likely to occur.
> they assumed they slain the Head of the beast and replaced it with many smaller unconnected narratives
Here they are.
>this view is proven wrong
How? It's not enough to merely state it, and poetic language doesn't help either.
>Rides atop the great Dragon of thou
Not here to judge your stylistic choice but, lol.
>whether you root things in objects or subject, all things can further be reduced to “characteristic” characteristic,
This is your statement of ontological primitives. You are going to start from "characteristic, property" as your building block. We can pause right there.
What is the ontological status of these characteristics? Are they characteristics of things? Are they qualia? Are they perceptions? Do they inhere in substances or do they exist independently of substance? If so are they universals?
Next.
>objects are defined and gain meaning by characteristic and transfer information by the same characteristic/property sets.
We can pause here again.
>defined.
What is the ontological status of a definition? Is it conventional or is it an account of the essence, thus realism? If the latter how do we gain knowledge of the essence?
>gain meaning
What is the meaning of meaning?
>transfer information
How? In other words how do properties/characteristics of objects become ideas in our mind? In other words how do we acquire knowledge (epistemology)? You can't answer this before you give an account of the ontological status of the "characteristics", and then, which is not treated here but is even more important, of that which can acquire knowledge, or man.
This is enough for now. All the rest depends on these starting definitions.

>>15082282
>The most irreducible state I can figure of is “characteristic” or property or sosein. There’s nothing that can reduce further than characteristic.
Hegel refuted this view in the Phenomenology in the chapter on Perception

>>15080582
This isn’t real schizowojak poster but it’s a nice summary of a philosopher’s thought nevertheless, thanks.

>>15082412
>Too general, you might want to restric your critique to a particular postmodern philosopher. Gross generalizations are likely to occur.

Broadly, lyotard, Foucault, etc.

> How? It's not enough to merely state it, and poetic language doesn't help either.

Explained in the write up itself.

> Not here to judge your stylistic choice but, lol

I fully admit that I enjoy the edge and will self indulge when I find it necessary.

> This is your statement of ontological primitives. You are going to start from "characteristic, property" as your building block. We can pause right there.
What is the ontological status of these characteristics? Are they characteristics of things? Are they qualia? Are they perceptions? Do they inhere in substances or do they exist independently of substance? If so are they universals?

The characteristic is the fundamental building block, I am speaking of Characteristic free of Being(aussersein, characters beyond beyond) whether you are producing an object orientated ontology, objects are simply defined by their differences in properties, if we base our ontology on the self, then the different characteristics of sense data become the root, if we analyze language, difference in characteristics/properties once more rears its head. My point when saying whether you divide to subject or object, all results in just characteristics bundled and relating to each other.

Consider it akin to the platonic conception of the Pure Idea, but grounded entirety to the material existence of what a characteristic Is.

> What is the ontological status of a definition? Is it conventional or is it an account of the essence, thus realism? If the latter how do we gain knowledge of the essence?
> What is the meaning of meaning?

Information, simply information and if things come preloaded with information that it must unfold (patterns or outcomes built into them, things have to occur, things have to intermix in certain ways, etc)

Again, this is not Platonism but a refinement of it, since we’re not talking about ideas but raw characteristic bundles interrelating and unfolding their range of potential other characteristics via their mutual interactions with each other requiring certain outcomes.

> How? In other words how do properties/characteristics of objects become ideas in our mind? In other words how do we acquire knowledge (epistemology)? You can't answer this before you give an account of the ontological status of the "characteristics", and then, which is not treated here but is even more important, of that which can acquire knowledge, or man.
This is enough for now. All the rest depends on these starting definitions.
Read the Second write up, experience of objects and experience of ideas occur at once (eidetic and empirical intuition are a singular process) this is simply a result of consciousness, all consciousness is necessarily consciousness of characteristics and consciousness itself is a result of certain properties.

>>15082445
Have you read meinong’s theory of Objects? Mathematically there is no way to speak of an object except by its properties, relations and so forth.

Don’t get me wrong I highly respect Hegel, But to me the major moves since him are Husserl’s developments on the ego being between being and non-being, and meinong’s freeing of sosein from Being/objects and I DO assert that the opposite of the entire object is contained/essentially a part of the object by the characteristics of lacks, as my theory of lack is more or less the nondual aspect of the entire concept, it IS an essential aspect of the specific characteristic to be lacking the other characteristics thus containing and reflecting the entire model and by pure mathematical analysis without relation I cannot speak of objects whatsoever.

Check out meinong’s object theory.

>>15080670
>>15080685
>>15080685
>>15080707
>>15080716
>>15080725
I don’t have time to finish this but this is pretty fucking good so far, it’s rare to see this much effort in posts here besides our beloved semi-comprehensible schizowojak poster. This is actually a really helpful summary of some parts of Grant’s Typhonianism for me (which I’ve been trying to get into a while but have been putting off) and the theory of hyper-time surprisingly matches in many ways with my own eccentric theory of time collated from eccentric sources like Gurdjieff and the mystical experiences of Philip K. Dick. I may respond to this more in-depth later, I want to give it the time it deserves

>>15082591

Based, it’s rather rare to find others who actually digs into grant’s broader body of work. I’d highly enjoy opportunity to discuss any of the above.

>>15082476
>The characteristic is the fundamental building block
Not to be nitpicky, but, I one can find a counterexample for each claim, thus undermining the whole argument.
>whether you are producing an object orientated ontology, objects are simply defined by their differences in properties
In Aristotle characteristics or accidents are merely categories of being, by no means ontological or even epistemological primitives.
>if we base our ontology on the self, then the different characteristics of sense data become the root
In no Idealist system that I know of is the case that sense data is the root.
>if we analyze language, difference in characteristics/properties once more rears its head.
Characteristics properties of what? Of predicates? Of signs? Of words?? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the main point is this. Why are characteristics the building block? Is it due to a deficiency in language? Or in knowledge? Or in perception? Or because the characteristics are the real building blocks or reality? In other words, what is the ontological status of characteristics? You haven't answered the most basic question.

>>15082591
Yes Anon has given a lot of thought to this. It's refreshing to see. I'm trying to pick holes in his system but only recreationally. It actually sounds promising.

>>15082616

What about meinong’s system and solipsistic formulations of the Hegelian model like Austin osman Spare’s model? Or some interpretations of berkeley?

I’m telling you that the building block is characteristic since we can only define things by relations, everything amounts to relations of characteristics so only characteristics are real and relations of characteristics. You cannot speak of objects without their bundles of characteristics, you cannot perceive of them without their bundle of characteristic, they do not exist mathematically without their relations and properties and character relations. Whether you reduce all to Objects or you reduce all things to the subject (such as the nondual egoist models such as Shivaism) the primary way things are experienced, comprehended, understood, exist in, have reality, and their essences conceived of is via characters and character relationships. Even in Parmenides relation and characteristic exists between the ideas (see Edward Zalta on full blooded Platonism) and such is exactly the definition of dharmas in the Theravada model of phenomenological analysis.

>>15082476
>whether you divide to subject or object, all results in just characteristics bundled and relating to each other.
Do the characteristics relate to each other in a mind-independent fashion? Or do they depend on a subject? Are they characteristics of things or do they exist independetly? If they don't exist independetly, what confers them unity in apperception?

>>15082628

Thanks m8, I know it comes off really autistic at first and the Jargon makes it seem rough but it’s because I’m building continuously off one model and just trying to become more and more comprehensive and reformulate based on new data and new arguments. I know this looks really prickish but I usually post my sperging here if you’re down to read my other schizo-rants.

My model begins with the article called “kaaba of 237 “ and builds off there piece by piece. zothyrianrevisionist,home,blog (For the record, my real name and the like isnt actually attached so its not a personality thing.)

>>15082659
>relations of characteristics.
If relations real they are either mind-independent or not. If mind-independent, you presuppose objectivity, if not, subjectivity.
The way I see it, if characteristics and their relations are mind-independent then we are just back to realism.
>You cannot speak of objects without their bundles of characteristics
If an object is bundle of characteristics what gives these characteristics unity? A substance, then these are ontological primitives, if a mind, then this is.

>>15082707
Great job. I'm gonna favorite.

>>15081340
Based anon who wants everything condensed into witty one-liner hot takes

>>15082659
>Whether you reduce all to Objects or you reduce all things to the subject (such as the nondual egoist models such as Shivaism) the primary way things are experienced, comprehended, understood, exist in, have reality, and their essences conceived of is via characters and character relationships.
I think the real ontological primitives in your system are experiences, or occasions like in Whitehead's system.

>>15082684

Depends on how you want to approach things, example I like to root all in phenomenological reduction usually without speaking of Noumena since practically the only thing of worth discussing which we can have the most accuracy of truth of in some regard is what we experience phenomenologically, In which case I can simply argue that the mental phenomenological existence of characteristic confers within the noumena real being to characteristic via univocity of Being (see scotus, also sorry i really don’t mean to appeal to authority I simply know that you’ll understand their arguments from their mouths better than I could reformulate them) thus they would be real anyways, but divorcing this we can simply take the realist approach to mathematics in the same manner as say, Quine Does and then use Quines ideas on set theory producing a platonic Absolute idea made of sets which interrelate and just go with that. (Since frege and Russell’s arguments are pretty dank) but if you don’t want to use either of these paths,

We could just throw caution to the wind and say that Physics for example requires interrelation, and that going by basic empirical analysis of the material world it is nonsensical to say characteristics don’t exist. M

By this I mean to say, ignoring mathematics and ignoring subjective experience, there’s no way for objects to have reality of being objects without having properties (even if we do not define these properties mathematically) and there’s no way we can speak of interrelation of objects, objects would not be able to exchange information/force/have relation unless difference existed. Since difference between objects exists logically there must be things which differentiate objects, this differentiation factor is properties, we cannot really conceive of objects without these. Even the basic concept of “object” implies the lack of the characteristic “characteristic-less” (which is itself just another property both mentally, mathematically and so forth)

So characteristic no matter how you tackle it, ought to exist objectively and within the Subject, interacts and unfolds itself via its multiplicity and all are expressions of this same underlying nature.

>>15082737

>realism

Meinong was a realist so this is logical my model is pretty different from his, we simply share the trait of rooting all into Characteristic.

The thing which gives these characteristics unity is “self relation” they are their own substance, their substance is within and is relation, they have no substance beyond relation. (This is gonna be where my Kabbalistic and Asian influence is showing, this is basically the ain conception and the Sunyata conception ) >>15082758

Nah to me, experience and Ego are a bifurcation of the same thing (pure ego) which stems from pure consciousness. Pure consciousness to me roots in Self nature, a transcendental Ego, To me the transcendental Ego exists as a relational entity, I define the transcendental ego as the “property of having properties “ (I view more or less being and lack as basically the same process/thing/dialectic with this transcendental ego situated between them, with all three deriving from Pure relation of characteristics which is itself, just characteristic relating to itself.

>>15082684
I think Frater A. is thinking non-dualistically here while you’re still thinking dualistically even after he’s argued, “whether you base your ontology on ‘objectivity’ or ‘subjectivity,’ all objects are just bundles of characteristics anyway.” If you then take the entire universe to form one coherent, rational whole which is constantly and instantaneously interconnected between all points in space and time (and even in multiple spacetime continua), like the Eastern image of Indra’s nets, you could justly be skeptical of the existence of independent and strictly demarcated objects, since, in this system, every “object” (or node in Indra’s net) is simultaneously contained in and contains the entire universe within itself (although not in the three-dimensional spatial sense of one object containing another like a goldfish in a bowl, since we’re now dealing with “hyperspace” and even “hypertime”, or a dimension outside of our normal four-dimensions which impinges upon it and allows it to exist). So, to put it extremely roughly, you could now see material reality as “bundles of characteristics interdependently interacting with other bundles of characteristics” if you wanted to speak very dualistically and materialistically, as if we were still in a world where “objects are just acting on objects”

>>15082770
>I like to root all in phenomenological reduction usually without speaking of Noumena since practically the only thing of worth discussing which we can have the most accuracy of truth of in some regard is what we experience phenomenologically
Fine.
>In which case I can simply argue that the mental phenomenological existence of characteristic confers within the noumena real being to characteristic via univocity of Being
How does the concept of univocity of Being work here? Are you saying that what we can say about phenomena apply to noumena, thus resolving the age-long question, because univocity of being? And why should we be bound to it? Specially since it is (originally at least) no more than an assumption?
>we can simply take the realist approach to mathematics
Doesn't that ontologically bind us to realism then?
>Quine
I'm not familiar.
>We could just throw caution to the wind and say that Physics for example requires interrelation, and that going by basic empirical analysis of the material world it is nonsensical to say characteristics don’t exist.
Nah this is a step backwards towards empiricism.
>there’s no way for objects to have reality of being objects without having properties
Reality or being is saying too much. There is no way we can know or perceive them unless by their properties like you said earlier maybe? Unless you're Aristotle or Aquinas.
>objects would not be able to exchange information/force/have relation unless difference existed.
Interesting point! Deleuze?
>Since difference between objects exists logically there must be things which differentiate objects, this differentiation factor is properties, we cannot really conceive of objects without these.
This completes the syllogism! But whence logic? From the characteristics? But they presuppose logic, as the argument shows.
>So characteristic no matter how you tackle it, ought to exist objectively and within the Subject, interacts and unfolds itself via its multiplicity and all are expressions of this same underlying nature.
I'm not convinced.

>>15082813
>is thinking non-dualistically
It doesn't make the problems go away. Non-dualism is not some magic card you use to dismiss everything. Well actually it is if you just intend to meditate, but the moment you try to give an account of reality and communicate your thoughts you give rise to these problems. Perhaps (assuming non-duality) it's a deficiency in our finite thinking or language.

>>15082804
>The thing which gives these characteristics unity is “self relation” they are their own substance, their substance is within and is relation, they have no substance beyond relation.
This is a very interesting concept.
But by "unity" I was refering to the bundle. What makes a set of characteristics be part of a bundle? You see a chalk. Its characteristics are color, form, etc. What makes you perceive this manifold as a distinct manifold from the background, the board, etc.

>>15082282
This sounds a lot like a regurgitation of Deleuze. However I think I see what you're saying about the relation of being to non-being, as being continually "assimilates" non-being by making the possible actual.

Still this is not clear enough to me. And take my word for it I am no brainlet. Your terminology is not well enough defined.

>>15081340
>>15081345
>>15081379
you are the same person

>>15082890
>How does the concept of univocity of Being work here? Are you saying that what we can say about phenomena apply to noumena, thus resolving the age-long question, because univocity of being? And why should we be bound to it? Specially since it is (originally at least) no more than an assumption?

Depends how you want to tackle it, but Univocity of Being would grant the phenomenological experience an equal amount of reality to the noumena, so that’s a singular way you can tackle it.

> Doesn't that ontologically bind us to realism then?

Mathematical realism is Platonism.

Check this out, he goes pretty good into Quine’s ontology.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O7iB70txmTg

Tldr, Mathematical realism would require in this sense that not only atomistic singular entities and real objects are real, but groups/sets (since Russell’s paradox means we can’t really make them non-existent) meaning we most ontologically commit to some abstract objects.

> Reality or being is saying too much. There is no way we can know or perceive them unless by their properties like you said earlier maybe? Unless you're Aristotle or Aquinas.

The point being made here, is that whether we analyze according to sense data, Root things back into objects, self nature or any other factor, we can always seemingly divide it one step further into characteristic.

> Interesting point! Deleuze?

Definitely, my argument is that his conception of difference would also necessitate characteristic as existing, what is difference without characteristic ? Difference necessitates the existence of characteristic from which it must root. There is no way to speak of difference without characteristics by which we can speak of things being different.

> This is a very interesting concept.
But by "unity" I was refering to the bundle. What makes a set of characteristics be part of a bundle? You see a chalk. Its characteristics are color, form, etc. What makes you perceive this manifold as a distinct manifold from the background, the board, etc.


Character unfolds itself by characteristics contrasting each other, thus Difference arises. This is why in my earlier longer write up I say the three fundamental aspects of experience seem to be Characteristic, difference (which requires characteristics to make sense, but are truly one in the same thing, character relations are the heart of differences ) and structure, structure itself as a concept makes no sense without difference to relate by.

Also I never insinuated at any point you lacked intelligence my guy!

>>15083126
I shall call your system, characteristic realism!
>Univocity of Being would grant the phenomenological experience an equal amount of reality to the noumena
I see, but to me that is the same as declaring the problem as non-existent by fiat (as univocity of being to me is no more than an assumption) and thus making phenomenology pointless. We could have skipped this by just staying with realism.
>Quine
Will check him out.
>The point being made here, is that whether we analyze according to sense data, Root things back into objects, self nature or any other factor, we can always seemingly divide it one step further into characteristic.
There is a misunderstading here with what we mean by object. To you object seems to be synonymous with substance. To me, objects are whatever is opposed to the subject. The moment you think, perceive, imagine, etc., anything, be it characteristics or whatever, that is an object to you. Thus characteristics are objects the way I see it.
>Definitely, my argument is that his conception of difference would also necessitate characteristic as existing, what is difference without characteristic ? Difference necessitates the existence of characteristic from which it must root. There is no way to speak of difference without characteristics by which we can speak of things being different.
Makes sense. I would add difference presupposes (self-)identity (and thus logic). Something can only be different from something else if the two are identical with themselves. Identity is more fundamental than difference because the former can be understood by itself and the latter only in relation to the former.
>Character unfolds itself by characteristics contrasting each other, thus Difference arises.
Sure they are different but that still doesn't explain how some characteristics, the white, the brittle, etc., are seen as stably belonging to the chalk and others, belonging to the board, and still others to the ackground.
>Also I never insinuated at any point you lacked intelligence my guy!
I'm not >>15082993

Alright. That has been enjoyable.

bump

These threads are uniquely heady and juicy. I appreciate them greatly, I enjoy seeing faces in these clouds. Thanks anons.
Btw I probably read about 5% of this thread but it was still enough to give me a temporary fix.

>>15083968
Many of /lit/‘s tripfags are shadowy overlords Kubrickesque spooksters like we’re seeing here. One in particular I remember semi-fondly was just waaaay off the deep end in pharmacology, extremely volatile in personality and posting style. I wonder what he’s been doing w his life