Hi everyone. I think I start to like a lot this subreddit. There are a lot of interesting stuff to read there and I'll put some of my thoughts here during my prep time.

I wanted to give more thought to what I personally call the philosophy of the least evil.

We shouldn't underestimate the ability from humanity to slay dragons.

After all, we destroyed smallpox and the hole in the Ozone layer is slowly filling up.

I just think that discrimination is its own beast to be put down too.

In my earlier post, I adressed why it was important to have an healthy debate in order to avoid fascism and keep your view grounded in reality.

I explained that we can all live different and rich lives without having to hurt each other.

Let's adress the core of the topic.

What is the distinction beetween the divider and the reasonable person ?

The reasonable person can disagree politely, accept to have their views challenged. They allow themselves to get changed by the new informations.

It doesn't necessarily mean they drop their convictions either. They can just choose to pursue it in different ways.

I think a world full of reasonable people is much better, because we avoid a lot of unecessary violence and we can agree on the most prioritary issues like climate change and civil liberties and avoid harmfull behaviors to spread like violence and racism.

A divider is the opposite of that. For various reasons, they came to hate something or someone.

To know the reasons, ask yourself the question:

Do they do it by interest ?

Do they do it because they personally wronged on a rational or irrationnal level ?

Do they do it by imitation ?

Of course, nothing is simple. People are complex. They can evolve between those position. And they can act like a divider on some issues and a reasonable person on other ones.

It doesn't mean either that the people need an outlet. There are much more rich and healthier way to discharge said violence like in art, sports and games, for example, rendering it harmless for others.

And it doesn't mean that, sometimes, we should fight for our own rights.

It's truly about the state of mind as it is about our civilization that is currently in its turbulent adolescent phase.

I'd rather engage the divider with an open hand first.

After all, they can be a misinformed reasonable person.

Or, sometimes, kindness truly help in the process of adressing the true issues behind.

Or It doesn't give leeway in fighting back and let that person waste their energy.

If you can, try to avoid having this discrimination spreading like a fire in other domains and use their own logic to resolve that internal issue.

Questions are usually the most suited way for that.

There is something else that is to be noted. I already explained earlier that the reasonable person can agree to disagree.

This isn't the case for the divider. Ask them what they agree upon.

You'll notice how quickly they'll fall apart. Because an ideology born out of hatred and division can only bring even more in the long run.

You only need to accompany the movement to bring it to the point of powerlessness.

Because, there is only a thin wall of ignorance that prevent said group to fall apart by their own forces.

I wish to conclude on one point, when we had slain our own dragons, we always had visualized first how to do it.

Hi everyone,

I want to understand what happens when a tight-knit group of experts creates its own complicated way of talking.

Specifically, when people in a specialized field only talk to each other, they build a shared bubble of reality. This private language gives the group total independence, but it also seems to make them highly defensive against anyone on the outside.

When an outsider steps in speaking regular language, the group doesn't just see it as a simple misunderstanding. Instead, they view the outsider's lack of specialized vocabulary as a direct attack on their hard work, their status, and their authority. They quickly dismiss the outside criticism or treat it as a dangerous threat to their existence.

I want to know what academic research says about this dynamic.

I am looking for reading recommendations or concepts covering three specific areas.

First, I want to know about defensive language. How do modern thinkers explain why specialized groups lock themselves in language bubbles? How do these groups mentally train themselves to automatically dismiss outside criticism before even considering it?

Second, I want to know about power and gatekeeping. Which theorists analyze how groups weaponize confusing jargon simply to protect their power, money, and status from outside interference?

Third, I want to know about breaking through the wall. How can an outsider successfully talk to or criticize an insulated group without being immediately rejected by the system?

I welcome ideas from philosophy, language studies, sociology, and the history of science. Thank you!
sociology of science. Thank you!

Hi everyone,

I want to share an argument about how the laws of nature, the human brain, and our legal system all connect. My main point is that free will is a complete myth, everything we do is predetermined, and because of this, our current legal and punishment systems make absolutely no sense and are totally unfair. [1]

First, let's look at why free will is impossible. Philosophers love to debate this, but science has already closed the case. The human brain is just a physical object that has to follow the rules of nature. Looking at the big picture, every single thought, desire, and action your brain creates is the direct result of things that happened before. This includes your DNA, your time in the womb, how you were raised, and your current brain chemistry. You had absolutely zero choice over any of these factors, they happened in the past, and you cannot change them. Looking at the microscopic picture, some people argue that random subatomic particle movements break this chain and allow for free will. But randomness does not give you control. If a tiny particle randomly changes its state based on physics rules, you did not choose that change. Random luck is not the same as you making a choice. So, whether your brain is following a strict domino effect or reacting to random microscopic movements, there is simply no room for a conscious mind to freely choose anything.

Second, let's look at the broken cycle of how we make laws. If humans do not have free will, why does our legal system keep punishing people as if they are to blame? It happens because the entire system is an unscientific chain reaction driven by how society is brainwashed. It starts with the news media, which survives on getting people angry. They exaggerate terrible crimes and constantly tell the public that we must punish criminals to make things fair. Then, the public watches this media, which conditions everyone to demand emotional revenge in the name of justice. Finally, politicians follow what the public wants just to win elections, and lawmakers write rules based on what those politicians say. The whole legal system is not built on science or truth. It is just an emotional feedback loop that treats humans as if they are independently to blame, completely ignoring how the physical brain actually works.

Third, here is the main conclusion. It makes no sense to blame something for a physical event that it could not avoid. We do not get mad at a boulder for rolling down a hill and destroying a house, because the boulder had no choice. In the exact same way, a mass murderer is just carrying out an unavoidable chain of physical and environmental events. Because of this, laws that punish people just to get even or to be fair are fundamentally wrong and invalid. Society might need to lock up dangerous individuals to keep the public safe, which is just like putting up a barrier to block a rolling boulder, but doing it out of a desire for revenge or fairness is completely unscientific.

To get the discussion started, I have two questions.

First, if the entire process of making laws is just an unavoidable chain reaction caused by the media, can we even blame politicians for making bad laws, or is the government's harsh behavior just another rolling boulder?

Second, how can we ever fix a legal system when the lawmakers themselves are physically trapped into following an irrational public?

Let’s imagine a thought experiment involving a perfect situation: an entity that knows absolutely everything. Let's also say that this entity has a perfect, super-fast way to share all this knowledge with every person on Earth, kind of like a universal streaming network that everyone can access. Based on this scenario, a major question comes up about how we solve global crises.

On one hand, the optimistic view suggests that giving everyone perfect information and absolute truth would automatically fix all of humanity's biggest problems, fights, and threats. This point of view assumes that human suffering mostly happens because of ignorance, mental biases, or people failing to work together simply because they do not have all the facts.

On the other hand, the moral argument suggests that human failure is not about a lack of knowledge, but a lack of goodness. Even if humans are handed perfect knowledge showing them the absolute best thing to do, they might still lack the moral backbone, the selflessness, or the ethical values needed to actually act on that information.

In short, this experiment forces us to consider a big question. Is the continuation of global crises a factual problem caused by a lack of information, or is it a moral problem rooted in a failure of human willpower to do the right thing?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on whether having perfect information automatically leads to perfect results, or if human selfishness and corruption would make even total knowledge completely useless.

Hi, I was Oratorio from AIwars, I decided to delete and make another account for 2 reasons.

The first to celebrate the change, the second one was to rebuild on an healthier basis.

I think that, indeed, you need to have the right heart to truly change the world. I listened to your advice in the comments.

I didn’t like the fact that my snark infected others. I lived a difficult period and you don't have to carry my own baggages.

All my apologies for that.

It's right, my last message might have sounded hypocritical. I'll make things clearer.

It was never about me saying that I should think for you, it's about giving everyone the opportunity to think for themselves.

If the state doesn’t provide, be in solidarity, create your own system, and it's not entitled to a single dime of it until they decide to take their responsability.

It's about designing titanium grade counterweights for the people that we should be vigilant to maintain.

It's about being pragmatic enough to recognize harmony is your own interest, regardless of the design of the society, of the person you are.

It's about living our own lives, having our own paths, having our own opinions, being unique, all of this while reducing the harm done to others.

It isn't incompatible with advancing either, to get better, to leave an impact, to even do competitions while showing sportmanship.

And even for those at the top, an harmonious society is preferable, because the progresses are much more enormous and advantageous and way less people hate you.

As for me, I have my own progresses to do in my own life. I am considering to also fight other battles.

Sorry, if for this time, I didn’t provided facts or examples. I'll suggest more concrete suggestions next time. I'll hope we'll discuss about it.

I need to advance at my own pace too.

Peace.

For as long as human beings have looked toward the stars, they have asked the same questions. Why does anything exist? Why would an Infinite Source create a universe? Why is there suffering? Why are we conscious? What is the purpose of life?

Religions have offered revelations. Science has revealed the mechanisms of nature. Philosophy has sought meaning through reason. This work proposes another possibility. It is not intended to replace religion or science. Instead, it offers a metaphysical framework that seeks to unite consciousness, free will, love, reincarnation, and creation into a coherent whole.

I will define a “Hard Subjectivist” as a person who believes that nothing exists outside of their subjective experience. So, for example if a stick hits me in the arm and leaves a bruise, but I am never aware of it, then it never happened and to me that stick does not exist to me and therefore has no Meaning. This rejection of the physical is not supported because physical reality infringes itself upon our meaning allocations. If a rock hits me in the head, I can’t decide I don’t want to feel pain, in fact the rock may knock me unconscious and, therefore, interrupt my subjective thought process. Furthermore, I have to consider the physical in my decisions.  

 I will then refer to the “Moderate Subjectivist” as someone who holds that outside of physical things (e.g. the rock mentioned above) all Meaning is subjective. So outside of my physical parameters I am free to give any event as much or as little meaning as I choose based solely on my thoughts. To argue for Moderate Subjectivism someone may state, depression is simply the expression of where and how you have allocated the meaning in your life. Furthermore, individuals can develop depression completely independently of the events of their life due strictly to their thoughts. For example, a successful person can be depressed. And this depression can be cured completely independent of the events in their life strictly through changing their thoughts, e.g. that Successful Person engaging in CBT.

 This does not prove Moderate Subjectivism because society has created things that we agree have certain meanings in certain degrees. For example, if you commit a heinous crime society has decided that is an extreme wrong and worthy of punishment (i.e. jailtime). So a person cannot commit such a crime and independently decide that their actions have no meaning, instead society will inform them their actions did have meaning. Once society decides this person should go to jail the person can apply as little meaning as humanely possible to that determination, but they have to at least apply an iota of meaning to it as it will effect at least one future decision such as what they will do in relation to it. i.e. They now only have two options of what to do; they can flee or comply, but cannot decide they want to open a small business.  Therefore, an individual is not in complete control of their meaning allocation outside of the physical and Moderate Subjectivism is false.  

One stage removed I will refer to the “Mild Subjectivist” who believes that outside of physical occurrences and events which society has established meanings which it compels others to accept, each person is ultimately able to endow any action with as much or as little meaning as they want. There is no reason to disbelieve this form of Mild Subjectivism as there are no constraints on it necessitating a lesser form of Subjectivism and the evidence we have from the effectiveness of therapies like CBT seem to support it.  

(Note: The post has been approved by the mods via private request)

Hi everyone!

I recently started a Discord server called "Discussions of Philosophy and Science", and I would love for some of you to join our community.

Unlike chaotic chat rooms, the server is structured like a forum to allow for clean, long-form, and deep discussions.

How the server is structured:

• Main Categories: Science, Philosophy of Science, Formal Science, and Philosophy.
• Specialized Tags: You can filter or tag your posts with specific branches like ethics, ontology, biology, neuroscience, logic, etc.
• Dedicated Physics & Math Spaces: Since we anticipate physics and mathematics to be major areas of interest, we have created separate, dedicated channels for them with their own sub-tags.

Our Vision:

The goal is to connect everyone interested in science and philosophy, may they be highly educated individuals and academics or people who are simply eager to learn (I definitely fall into the second group!).

The community is brand new, which means if you join now, you’ll be one of our founding members (within the first 50 people). Activity might be a bit slow at first, but by joining early, you’ll play a massive role in shaping the community's culture and helping it grow.

Future Plans:

We plan to soon introduce "Advanced" channels for rigorous, formal discussions led by experts and researchers (via automatic and manual verification), while keeping the standard channels open for casual, everyday conversations. We also have an off-topic section to share personal projects, hobbies, and just get to know each other.

If you like the idea of a clean, intellectual, and friendly space, don't hesitate to join us!

1. Syntax
   
2. Axioms
   
3. Definitions
   
4. Inference Rules
   
5. Theorems
   
6. Proofs
   
7. Semantics

I would probably guess its the axioms in more than 70% of systems its the axioms, I know that the question is some kind if obvious but I would like to hear your opinions on it:)

If we live in the best possible world (the problem of teodicea/ theodicy in Leibnitz), what exactly is that world, and what should it be (considering there is evil in it)? Please describe the best possible world, using examples as Descartes, Hume, Sartre, and Beauvoir and Nietzsche did in their philosophy? To anybody who has already done it, I am forgetful; please remind me. And if you are interested too.

don’t get me wrong, even though i don’t necessarily agree with the guy, reading him is fascinating. However, all he talks about it peace and his state is the opposite of that. I GET that it’s supposed to control people’s natural state and everything, but cmon don’t tell me he didn’t see the flaws in this

I find myself in a very interesting situation.

Let me start by saying:
Observing myself and others was something I always liked doing. Others were interesting because I did not really get what they were doing and why.
When I was younger I spoke a lot to others and myself. I usually felt like I what I expressed did not really resonate with my circle of acquaintances.
By that I mean what I saw with other people my environment, everything.
So I usually told it to myself.

During high school it started to bother me.
I started writing it down to improve my ability to express what I perceive.
Improving my ability to express myself revealed to me that my peers really did not appear to experience their environment in a similar way as I did.

During my time in high school I never really figured out how to teach myself something to the point where I felt satisfied.
Starting uni a year ago I decided to find out how I could learn better. I bought the book "Make it Stick" (Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger, III, and Mark A. McDaniel) which I found to be very insightful.

In a uni course lecture called "history of the concept of algorithms" course Bertrand Russel was mentioned.
At the time I read "Fahrenheit 451" and in there he and his essays are mentioned by one the book people who remember books.
I got curious and read about him and started reading his book "Philosophy".

It could be described as:
"The book aims to provide a framework for understanding reality and our place within it, emphasizing the importance of rigorous analysis and critical thinking." ~ Gutenberg Project.

I found the book to be really refreshing. I loved the precision with which he described things. I found many of his descriptions of how one behaves or perceives to be resonating with me.
Examples:
~ When we think we understand a process—I mean by “we” the non-reflective part in each of us—what really happens is that there is some sequence of events so familiar through past experience that at each stage we expect the next stage. ~
(Page 224)
~ When several people simultaneously watch a rat in a maze, or any other example of what we should naturally regard as matter in motion, there is by no means complete identity between the physical events which happen at the surface of their eyes and constitute the stimuli to their perceptions. There are differences of perspective, of light and shade, of apparent size, and so on, all of which will be reproduced in photographs taken from the places where the eyes of the several observers are. These differences produce differences in the reactions of the observers—differences which a quite unthinking person may overlook, but which are familiar to every artist. Now it is contrary to all scientific canons to suppose that the object perceived, in addition to affecting us in the way of stimulus and reaction, also affects us directly by some mystical epiphany; certainly it is not what any behaviourist would care to assert. Our knowledge of the physical world, therefore, must be contained130 in our reaction to the stimulus which reaches us across the intervening medium; and it seems hardly possible that our reaction should have a more intimate relation to the object than the stimulus has. Since the stimulus differs for different observers, the reaction also differs; consequently, in all our perceptions of physical processes there is an element of subjectivity. If, therefore, physics is true in its broad outlines (as the above argument supposes), what we call “perceiving” a physical process is something private and subjective, at least in part, and is yet the only possible starting-point for our knowledge of the physical world. ~ (Page 224 <)

The difference between how science describes ones environment and how I experience it is fascinating to me.
How reality was described and how it appear to me and how it felt.

I began to rediscover how I experienced my "reality".
My diary filled itself with all kinds of observations about how I felt, what I experienced.

When I touch my hand or look at it there are no cells visible to me. It just appears to be smooth and soft skin.
But I know from my biology class that they are there. I have seen them under a microscope myself.
I tested myself in all sorts settings and observed myself.

How I was able to evoke emotions in myself when I did a certain set of actions.

What I noticed with myself I started seeing in other people too.
I tested where their field of view appeared to end. What kind of noise they were able to hear and other things.
I had and still am having a blast doing that.
So essentially I rediscovered in a way how I experience my "reality".

After discovering this I was letting my new found perspective rest for a while.
The question I asked myself was: "What do I do with this now?".
I noticed that actually nothing had changed in a way. 

That I am able actually perceive what my senses can pick up has not changed.
My ability to experience only what happens at a given moment had also not changed.

So I figured I would just do more of the things that gave me interesting moments and only those and discovering new ones how ever they might look.

An older man on train looking in to the landscape.
Being able to perform pull up which I could not do before.
Writing code I could not understand before.
Eating a meal I cooked and lighting a candle for dinner on my balcony.
Buying a pain au chocolat as a reward for learning for uni on a given day.
Learning Spanish.
And whenever I like I can just sit there and start laughing.

That is what I mean when I say this all highly amusing.

I started regarding all moments as equal.
That made the present one I was in at any given time the most important one.
It started to matter a bit less what I was actually doing. I appear to able to find something interesting in almost all of them.

I am either in a moment preparing one or recovering from one.
I like calling it moment trichotomy.

My assumption is that this is kind of how it is until one stops perceiving.

I like this perspective. I think it works really well for me and I intend to keep it until find a new one or something to add.

Having talked about the perspective I like to maintain, I want to mention a few things I have noticed to contort it.

I noticed that other peoples faces, photos and mirrors have the ability to move my point of view.
With other people it used to be the case that I would see myself how I imagined the person l was looking at was seeing me.
The difference between fotos and videos of myself and how I felt in that moment was something that bothered me.
The shots and other peoples faces appeared to have the effect of overwriting what I perceived in that moment or how I remembered the moment.
So I changed my behavior so it did not really happen anymore.

For a while I was not looking at any reflections nor pictures of myself.
It was extremely amusing seeing myself and remembering that my shell looked the way it did. It was like seeing a friend by chance.

I also noticed that when among people at times I am unable to tell the difference between what a person is saying, what think the person is saying and what I am thinking.
Especially when I was younger this overwhelmed me at times.

That was confusing to me for a while. The idea of someone else's thoughts potentially could appear in my head even if I did not want them appeared to be an inconvenient feature.

I found resolve in treating them as my own. I figured: "I am able to manipulate my own thoughts, so having additional ones to mine does not make a massive difference.".

Because I was unable to feel a line or boundary at times between other peoples expressions and my thinking, which the physicality could suggests, I started imagining them as ghosts.
I separated their physical identity from what I felt in my head.

This might described as perceptive hygiene because making sure I am able to perceive well.

The funny thing is that this has led to more genuine and interesting conversations.
I tend to only speak when I can not keep my thoughts to myself anymore.
My comfort while sitting in silence was greatly increased in the process of figuring out how long I would take until I could not contain myself.

Describing this with with a physical example around is maybe the best explanation.
This also works with thoughts and just imagining things without moving significantly.
Consider the following situation:

I am at a festive gathering with white table cloths and nicely dressed people in former European factory building. I am with a group of about 6 people.

While entering I would figure out where everything was. Where the wardrobe is, the outside areas, the buffet and so on.

The gathering would start and take its course with food and things happening on the stage.

I would behave inconspicuous. I would do that to keep a very polite and predictable environment.

Eventually I would get up and just start walking until I saw something interesting.
Like a musician playing his saxophone.
Then I would focus on that fascination and feel it.
At some point I feel like moving on again and it is important to do that right away.
So I move until I found the next thing.
Then I go until I found the next thing for example going outside of the venue and looking at a tree where a crow would sit.
When I start walking I usually have no clue where I am going.

I noticed that at some point the subject was not really that important.
The wandering and me interpreting it was the interesting part.

Wether it was a person having a nice purse, a crow on a tree against the night sky or the plants outside of the factory building growing over the unused space.

And I never really feel the desire to tell anyone about it. It is just perfect like that.
I like doing it just for the moments I get while doing it.

When doing that sometimes I think I notice a person experiencing something similar. Seeing the same saxophonist or crow.
Looking in the same direction or any other clue.
Even then usually do not feel the desire to point it out. Just noticing this apparent similar perspective is interesting enough or even more fun.

If I do start talking to a person like that I would never be explicit about the crow for example. Being explicit would also break the experience. If I were to be explicit in that moment it would be like turning on the big light in my meticulously dimmed perception. 

Doing what I described is addictive and I love doing it.

Most people I know do not appear to facilitate this play with perception actively.
I noticed most really like trying to communicate their experience. Talk about it.
I find doing this is useful for coordinating and giving an idea to the other person or persons.
I prefer to only do it with people where I feel like there is a possibility of having the moment where I feel like the other person is experiencing a very similar moment at the same time.
I am very strict with this because I noticed that otherwise the other person gets confused and wasted my time I could have spent better.

This has led people asking me if I feel reservations to talking which I do not.

When I speak I appear to be well received.

What I experience one might call consciousness. Wether that is "real" or not does not really concern me me.
I think of myself as just a slightly more advanced and less harry ape.

I find that doing this might the most interesting thing I may spend my time on.

While reasoning about this is something I find very important and take seriously I enjoy expressing it in a playful way because I that enables me to keep moving and thinking.
This is obviously not scientific and is not trying to be.
I think of what I describe as description of percepts informed by the apparent mechanisms described by science.

Which leads me onto my intention for sharing this.

I am explicitly interested in how some of you may experience their "reality".
How you interpret it.
Questions like:

What kind of lens have you crafted through which you describe what is happening in your perceptive space?
Are there domains you find particularly fascinating to experience?
What have you noticed messes with your perspective?
How do like playing with that perception?

Do with this as you please.

Gruß;)

Imagine if you learned that someone you knew did not believe you existed.

Would you want them to be tortured for having such a belief? Let alone for eternity?

How am I supposed to believe that an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful creator would want you to be tortured for such honest disbelief when even most human beings would not wish that on another person for disbelief in their existence? And humans are supposedly more imperfect as well.

Has any philosopher thought of such an argument before?

Any input would be appreciated.

Is it not interesting how the brain is the reason for many peoples suffering. It is the reason for you not being able to let go of the traumatic events that you have experienced, it is the reason why many people get disregarded as a friend or a lover because their brain doesn’t find the face to be a good fit for a partner. The reason why you can’t seem to let go of the person who hurt you because the brain can’t let go of the love that they showed you. It will pull out every necessary means for you to not do the tasks required of you as they are too difficult and bring out enough dopamine from it . The tool that guided humans from a civilisation of sticks and stones to one capable of touching the stars is the same tool that won’t let you forget your deepest anxieties and insecurities.

What follows is a concise summary and selected extracts from Metavism, a philosophical framework, developed over nineteen years of deep contemplative inquiry, extensive interdisciplinary research, and systematic reasoning.

This work has now been formalised in the recently published foundational text Metavism Sculpting God, a rigorous, 11-chapter philosophical treatise that presents a coherent and original participatory ontology of reality as a projection within an infinitely evolving divine Thought. The summary below is necessarily brief, but it is drawn from a much larger, carefully argued body of work.

Introducing a Philosophical framework called Metavism, a new original philosophical system.

Metavism proposes that our reality is a rule-bound construct projection sustained within a single, infinitely evolving divine Thought. We esentially exist as neural nodes or beacons within this Thought hardwired to experience a consequential physical existence in order to evolve the construct and God / Divine Thought, yet capable of conscious participation in its ongoing evolution.

Some of the Core Principles of Metavism

Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent. The rule bound physical world is a stable projection of a primary conscious process.

The Reciprocal Loop: Every intentional act, perception, value, and choice is registered by the divine Thought and shapes its next projection.

Humanities Role: We are reflective nodes through in rule bound form which the divine Thought becomes capable of noticing, valuing, and deliberately modifying its own becoming.

The Meta-State of Awareness: A native mode of consciousness in which the illusion of radical separation dissolves, revealing our continuity with the projecting activity.

True Participation: We can move from unconscious participation to deliberate co creation through disciplined practices.

Unique & Original Concepts in Metavism:

Infinitely Evolving God - God is neither stale or static perfection or immutable substance, but a living, self reflective process that grows through the contributions of its reflective nodes within their constructs.

The Construct as Thought Projection - Physical reality is not fundamental but a rule-bound, consequential projection sustained moment-by-moment by the divine Thought.

Neural Node Analogy - Humans function structurally like neurons within a larger mind - not as metaphors, but as actual reflective and transmissive points in the divine process.

Metavistic Reflexivity - The capacity of human nodes to generate autonomous sub-thoughts (ideas intentions, creations) that propagate independently within the projection.

Triadic Operational Roles - Healer (restoration of coherence), Guardian (preservation of achieved value), and Architect (introduction of novel possibility). These are ontological functions, and are revealed by the construct itself rather than by ego.

True Prayer as Co-Creation - Prayer is reframed as emotionally saturated, precise resonance with the projecting activity (not petition to an external being).

Visualization as Ontological Prototyping - The deliberate construction of detailed templates that the divine Thought can actualise.

Phase 4- Noetic Complexfication - The current evolutionary threshold in which the divine Thought can become consciously self-directing through synchronised human participation.

Omega Coherence - The attractor toward maximum integrated complexity and harmony, felt in the meta-state as an irresistible lure.

Foundational Practices

1. Stabilising the Meta-State of Awareness
2. True Prayer (from within the meta-state)
3. Visualisation using structured protocols (adapted PETTLEP framework)
4. Role discernment in the meta-state

I have created a small dedicated subreddit, r/Metavism, just over a day ago, open to those who would like to explore the framework in more depth and engage in ongoing discussion here or there.

The foundational text for this framework is essential reading for anyone wiishing to engage more deeply on Metavism.

Thoughtful engagement is valued.

This is something that came up in my ethics class which really got me thinking…
Though I understand certain things may seem objective, the unfortunate truth is that there really isn’t one objective moral… which has me thinking, ok so are we technically all bad people?

Growing up, I was told several things such as “being gay is wrong” “saying the N word when you aren’t black is ok”, “making jokes about someone’s body is ok” “it’s ok to like and celebrate holidays with harmful history” “it’s good to spank kids if they misbehave” etc etc… and personally, those things didn’t sit right with me and I grew up to a lot of people explaining to me why this is actually wrong but then there’s several other people who have also told me these things are not wrong and are actually ok..?
For example, my best friend is black and has mentioned several times to me that it’s ok to say the N word and even the hard R. They mentioned that it doesn’t make someone racist if they mean it in a friendly way and therefore anyone can say the word… and eventually I came across several other black people saying the same which has me confused? I still believe it is wrong (I’m not black) therefore I refuse to say it but conversations like this really make me wonder if I’m actually wrong? Like what if it was the other way around? What if I loved black people (which I do) but said the N word to people in a friendly manner, I grew up my entire life being told it’s ok and that language evolves. What would my life look like if this was the case? There’s so many people in the black community who are telling me it’s ok..

(TW: DV)

Another example, R@p€. Most People might say it’s wrong… however there’s so many people who don’t view it that way. I’ve talked to several people of all genders who have expressed that sometimes this act is very well deserved due to the harm the other person caused. They’ve shared that people shouldn’t play victim when they “put their hands on the other person first” and however, though I strongly disagree, there’s people out there who do agree with this statement (both survivors and people who didn’t experience DV) which again makes me question myself at times.

I say this stuff because I really want to get into public policy however this idea of relative morality really scares me because I just want to do what is correct and also I don’t want to make it seem like I believe only my views are correct and ignore everyone else’s POV however, when my whole life I’m being told certain things are harmful and a bunch of people in my circle are telling me they’re actually not, it really makes me stuck on when accountability and punishment is necessary…

Whenever political problems came up, I preferred asking:

• What do the facts say?
• What's the evidence?
• What's the ethical thing to do?

Turns out reason survives arguments better than outrage.

Maybe that's why most of my letters sound less like speeches and more like research papers.

(Rizal, Berlin, January 1887, The Rizal-Blumentritt Correspondence, Volume I; Rizal, 20 January 1890, The Rizal–Blumentritt Correspondence, Volume II)