https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=853uLRNlMHo

Hi everyone 😊 First, sorry for my english ,i'm from Poland and i'm living in France.

So

Since years at this point, i'm fascinated (with hindsight) of pseudo-science, alchemy , and that kind of stuff. It's been quite a while since i wanted to create a book , handwritten, who regroup many things from every kind of pseudosciene.

So i would like to ask you some ideas about what could i put into , i already have regrouped a lot of things but i want to add more.

Recently i have seen about a pseudo science diagram in witch we draw the silhouette , and with colours we associate parts of our body with feelings . I'm searchinf that kind of stuff. Pseudosciene diagrams etc. But everything that is in form of diagram , survey etc that link to me ,my feelings , to my thoughts would be great to add but i cant tell how to search the best number of results.

So i'm asking you guys for ideas. I'm new on reddit so i dont know if this subreddit is the good place to ask it , so tell me if its okay there or if there's a better subreddit

Thanks for your attention and propositions -Maciek

direful support familiar expansion simplistic innate gray sophisticated cheerful many

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

THE CODEX RIDICULUS By Oberon

/S3:8:47:/ The code is CYCLICAL You’re welcome future me

(No affiliation) [10:14]

:¥:

Following is my attempt to solve the universe:

Following is my (a) delusion:

/Session 3: 7:51:/The first code is LOGIC. It will be repeated where and when the thought is completed.

There is an enlightened ((note: I’ll return to this later for now-recorded 9:32))

Following is my greatest (and only) attempt to record my live thought process:

[LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THIS IS THE PART WHERE I STARTED (recorded 9:13) (get an f’n load of me) Test: Two people, one of which is high. Do you enjoy my writing style? Only possible due to complex social logic. Anyways. Both participants are timed and asked to perform a series of rhyming sentences constructed spontaneously /2,5:04:/ and to the best of their ability.

Perhaps the ones who know the most are the ones who remember most, most not just being a measure of their intelligence. If we assume, [if we assume] that the most logical statement is the correct one, as most people do, then /S3:3:27/ The code is INTELLIGENCE

Logical realness as suggested by:

Metarecursive Logic: logic that recurs over time continuously clarifying itself gradually and occasionally quickly, with each iteration coming closer to matching the distinct common sensation of our reality, or the mathematically simulated reality of science. Beginning when asking oneself why one is asking oneself why one is asking oneself why is asking oneself and breaking out of that thought with another piece of logic one iteration “more real” than (/S3:8:43/ the code is CLOSING THE LOOP)

(Here I paused to write the title (revision 10:17- actual title was written four minutes ago or so. Thus I only wrote on top of this piece of writing back then))

Maybe the end goal of science is to escape the loop—Paranoid people tend to hate other people. That’s why I tend to hate everyone in various amounts, which typically is close to zero. /S3:329:/The code is ESCAPE

Recording is an especially necessary tool to increase the logical realness of any particular single complete thought. The ability to record is an incredibly intelligent thing to do, as in, it requires (/S3:8:29:/ the code is RECORDING)

Intelligence is passive logical intake A perfect logic takes into consideration that it takes into consideration that it takes into consideration that it takes into consideration that it takes into consideration that it takes into consideration… etc, until you stop it By taking control of

At the end of metarecursive logic expressed in a statement, the logic of the last statement (which is itself is (also) an optional stream of logic. (Or just a separate statement (which is itself an entertaining thought is itself logically indistinguishable from the

(At this point I went back to the beginning and added one more title on top of the first one, and then after a bit more writing another title on top of that. I am now considering yet another title to supercede the last, as I am beginning to grow exhausted here at 9:44.)

The goal of my life is to prove god by realizing that I am the only one that exists, and by realizing that I’m realizing that I’m realizing that Im realizing And avoiding those thoughts which meet their logical end and thus prove themselves to be Illogical quests That this universe was created by me and exists because of me and also was created by you and exists because of you and that none of that at all is true. That god and supposedly death reached by increasing the span of all intelligence

And intelligence is an enemy of god. It is the devil, as it creates suffering

At this point the delusion has grown to encompass the entire scope of the writing and it’s purpose, and I am hooked into it, it has claws in me, it’s tearing and freezing my mind as my eyes glaze over. /10:06/ delusion is defined as any individual logical consensus, or perhaps any full world view existing as a result of many different See Christians and Muslims are smart, because they realize that everybody has to become their religion. But IIIIIIIm saying that everybody is already understanding the truth, everybody is already their religion, hell they were god before they even started.

Ok enough delving into delusion for the moment, though there are many things to be said

Including that god is a sort of metaphorical sculpture which is carved from this giant block of universe which is already physically itself by extension god. (Revision 10:42–consciousness carves the block from the inside out with the chisel of intelligence, forming a sculpture like a sprouting tree with every phase of its life simultaneously in existence. Infinite sprawling branches of logic protrude through time. They are not god, god is the block. But they exist within and as god, as life, and they annihilate the tree of negative space without Life and annihilation. Assumption: life has meaning Assumption: the soul exists (though, does this count as an assumption. Can the soul exist in any constructed reality of thought, in any one contestant stream or collection of streams of logic, so long as the conditions which define the soul are defined as such in the system? But, but… Assumption: you of all people understand this to be reality (while other people, some of whom more intelligent than you, don’t believe at all) You of all people The man in/on the internet/book/video/costume/position of authority told me so

(R11:17 Truth is,) Truth is there, just just got to believe it. The rational end is reached eventually by all consciousness in gods universe, and in a flash of ecstasy (that) soul(ish seeming force (or entity) which manipulates energy) destroys itself, propulsing itself back into nothing (in which sits the all encompassing everything we once inhabited on our tiny slice of lifetime)

/S3:7:54:/ I write now as if still in session two. I never was able to live record session two. session two does not exist. It only exists now through session three. This is because session two happened in my mind as a projection into the future from the past. Here it is, from the start: I have answered my own fears with hope, as I have returned to write here another day. I say this because there is a pattern which has emerged in my writing over my career trying to be a writer. The pattern is that I have only recently been able to write any one thing in one individual writing session. After the session is complete, I burn out and never touch the writing again. These words are proof that the pattern can change. How did it change? I changed it. How did I change it? Partly through the method by which I am constructing this piece of writing, which is in its nature not actually a single comprehensive string of thought, but a bunch of fragments of potential thoughts which I plant the roots of in the past and then return to at a later time, which is the future. The result is a living work of writing that grows from all sections. I have, over the course of this writing, established certain rules for myself in order to connect all of these disparate trailings of thought through time, or at least create the illusion of doing so. Through these rules I will at some indeterminate point have a fully comprehensive (though extremely complicated) structured essay of thought. It is not friendly to the reader, but that is not the point. The point is integrity.

/S3:7:50:/ before I can write more of session three, which is all quite interesting, I must first insert session two. Otherwise session three won’t make sense. Here is more of session two, unfortunately it is not catalogued with a timestamp:

/S3:8:07:/ Session two:

The Art of Zen Shitting: (/S3:8:08:/the code is ZENSHIT. The code will repeat where and when the thought continues)

How do you know that this book is representative of its complete timeline of thought, that it catalogues every step of creation of its god and maker? The answer is It is not. The book is only chronological in that it provides a frozen illusion of time passing between its pages. Text is read left to right down the rows and then on to the subsequent page, our brains registering symbols as shortcuts through great spans of binary logic, often (/S3:8:09/ The code is FOSSILS. The code will repeat where and when the thought continues

Differentiation between the lucid and the illucid:

Lucidity is complete skepticism, complete intelligence, misery, and immediate death, and because of itself does not exist

The illucid is created by consciousness, as it applies through its ego and senses constraining functional tethers to limitless infinity of abstract reality The illusionary experience of traveling through time is a complicated systematic selection of infinite possibilities for every individual expression of energy, a process which is mind numbing and one the human brain (or any sort of brain) is not designed to comprehend. But in the universe of abstract reality, the existence of its existence is both self evidently simple and infinicompassingly complex (/S3:8:11/ The code is LUCIDITY. The code will repeat where and when the thought is continued.

An infinite variety of individual subjective conscious and unconscious realities coexisting together at once in accordance to their own internal logic results in a system of solipsisms residing in a collective being. Thus the experience of the other is simultaneously in effect and not. The other exists as potential constantly being expressed in the present and guided by our own will as we traverse the deeply complex world of abstraction laid out objectively before us. Interestingly, the other similarly exists both as a separate individual being and as the same individual being as the self. All kinds of existent paradoxisms become possible at infinity. All consciousness expresses itself in our material world through motion and action—be it action of the mind or body.

The enlightened are those who have existed perfectly in their own subjective reality by understanding it in totality and as such by being in it objectively and completely. Everybody is already enlightened, we just don’t recognize it. Fully recognizing it is incredibly difficult, perhaps maybe even impossible—though there are people who claimed to have achieved such harmony.

There are holes in the fourth dimension: negative spaces of light in time in which consciousness as we know it is not possible. These holes don’t even exist at all, they exist purely as nothing, or as our idea of nothing. If no consciousness present in all of time and infinite possibility

/S3:8:13/ Now here is session 3 proper. Finally, new thoughts and ideas. I’ve had it with all the old ones. What I just did, what I have been doing, and what I will be doing took/has taken/will take a lot of work. It is for a reason though, and until I come up with a better way of doing it, it will be done this way. It is a system of time stamps and codes, which I shall insert into every section in the future in order to create order from chaos in the past. This is the system I have devised for creating an unbroken steam of consciousness frozen in time for display. Allow me to demonstrate:

/S3:8:18:/ FOSSILS: This book appears to be a single continuous stream of logic which references its past self, as long as it is read chronologically. (8:22: The code is FOOLISH)

/S3:8:24:/ EXPLANATION: Because the code system takes so damn long to execute every time, I am wasting my time writing down its execution instead of writing my precious narrative. This causes me to place my thoughts in other places besides this book before I transfer them into this book in order to maintain the book’s integrity. /8:30:/ RECORDING: As the ability to record requires the one recording to be able to accomplish certain prerequisites. These are, to my knowledge: 1. Language 2. The ability to nest vast amounts of individual logical pathways within shortcut pathways, a mechanism that requires high intelligence, and I assume (until I can prove it) 3. Self awareness. The ability to think about what one is thinking about 4. Some physical way to record, such as writing or audio. To a lesser extent, memory is a form of recording The ability to record opens up many opportunities for the recorder, but also has downsides. The greatest opportunity is that recording in a physical medium allows thoughts to be developed far beyond the bounds of what our working memory would naturally allow. Opportunities which stem from this great opportunity are the ability to self reference and develop a thought by thinking about the thought, and the ability to develop a thought in the first place before recording it, which is something I am actively trying to avoid. Alas, avoiding the prerecorded development is impossible, as I am finding. This is because of the major downside of recording. The downside: We cannot possibly record our own thoughts fast enough to keep up with our live stream of consciousness, and we cannot possibly record all thoughts we have ever thought as they come into our heads (at least not right now). Thus I am having to make certain compromises (see FOSSILS) With that loop of logic closed, I am finally able to return to (FOOLISH). But first, I just thought of something. Another future tree who’s seed I need to plant.

/Session 3:7:50:/ LOGIC:

Here is some Subjective Math:

Reality = Awareness plus choice times time Awareness = a number of choices already made that are used as assumptions when applying a new choice

“Choice” in this sense means any possible occurrence, choosing one possible reality

Reality times time=the number of choices already made plus one choice

Choice(c)= (n)t, where n=infinity-infinity

t=infinity-infinity (the number of choices already made minus the number of choices left to make

C=(infinity-infinity)(infinity-infinity) Infinity-infinity-infinity+infinity Or (infinity)0

R=t because reality is the accumulation of all choices (and thus events) occurring before the present moment R= (x+c)t where x is intelligence X= ct

R= (ct+c)t

Substitute definitions of c and t

R = (ct+(infinity)0)infinity-infinity

The problem here is that ct is already our definition of reality, the current total number of choices that have yet to be made, as a result of us having made the choice to represent the current number of choices made in such a way, and infinite other choices, such as deciding to write it down, and all the choices I made while I was thinking it up. R2 = (R1+(infinity)0)infinity-infinity R2 = (R1)infinity-infinity R2 = (R1)0 R2 = 0 Whenever we define time as the present moment, the most current accumulation of reality collapses into zero. At the most infinitely present moment, nothing is known.

t=1, R now equals 1 because one choice has been made for t to equal 1 and W equals t. The choice to allow t to equal 1 When t=2, two choices have been made: the choice to allow t to equal 1, and the choice to allow t to exist one more infinity-infinity of time, the act of making t=2 same is the case for t=n Thus the total number of choices being made, and thus actions being taken in a universe, is equal to the amount of time that universe has existed. Conversely, the amount of time that universe has existed is equal to the amount of choices which have been made. Between t=0 and t=1 exists (0-infinity)t. Negative infinity. This is the number of choices that have currently been made since t has equaled 0. It is a form of infinity which makes itself fit in the infinitely small space between 0 and 1. Same is true for the amount of space in between 1 and 2. (1-infinity)2 = -infinity It is an entirely different negative infinity in character, but it is still negative infinity, everything that should go past the decimal point of time but doesn’t.

Choice(c)= (n)t, where n=infinity-infinity t=1 Choice=(1)1 C=1

R=(x+c)t where x is intelligence x=ct R=(ct+c)t R=(1*1+1)1 R=2

Now why in the world does R=2 here? It is because describing why R=1 took a negative infinity amount of time, which is the amount of time it took for me to come to the conclusion that R=2. There is technically an infinite amount of time there, but by using math and logic we have leaped over the infinite gorge of stuff that exists between one and two. This act has taken an infinite amount of time, or, as we define it here, 1 time. But because of this R can only equal one in abstraction. As soon as you apply R to real life, check it’s value, determine if it exists, it increases by infinity, as thus collapses into 0.

When R=2, we must assume that t=2, as R contains two actions, and only one action can occur per time. The problem is, as soon as t=2, R=3, then t=3 and R=4, and so and and so forth. If you try to calculate how much infinity reality actually contains, you will be stuck calculating it for infinity, no matter now fast you were able to process it. Unless, of course, your processing speed was infinite.

And there is “mathematical proof” as to the nonexistence of the present and the existence of the self being the force which generates a present it cannot experience, which is the future.

Why then, does the self not generate whatever reality it pleases? Because the self is limited by the other, which is also able to generate reality however it pleases. We live in a universe which is an entirely random and completely sustainable system of infinity-infinity. Infinite potential reality expressing itself and acting against infinite other infinite potential realities. When I observe something in my universe, it now takes away my ability to discount it as something in the universe. We can say this is only until I stop observing it, but we are able to record internally choices which are made at us through our system of memory. And if one of us doesn’t remember or observe any certain reality, then the rest of us will, because we are all as humans programmed to experience infinite reality in a certain way, which is over time. As a result of this, humanity has accepted certain things to be reality, these things being all things which exist to sustain our existence and to threaten our existence. We turn these two opposed parts of reality into good and evil, which is expressed through our brains in response to stimulus in the form of emotions, so that we may identify any stimulus as a potential threat to our existence and thus try to avoid it. Is delusion, then, when we oppose all that we are opposed to so strongly that we forget that we are opposed to it in the first place? Does that mean that we don’t technically have to actually oppose anything? Does THAT mean that all delusion is actually true, since I do not oppose the truth being substantiated by the delusion. In the abstract world, untethered from our senses of reality, we see that the existence of 1 naturally implies 2 and the existence of 0 naturally implies 1. There are an infinite number of ways in which nothing can imply everything, numbers and math only being one, but one that we believe is guaranteed to reflect actual physical reality. 0 can also imply .5, which implies 1, which implies 1.5, etc… 0 can also thus imply 8, which implies 16, which implies 24, etc…

All we are doing here is changing what we’re assuming. Instead of assuming that matter caused consciousness (and thus the universe exists outside of its awareness of it, because the universe came first before awareness, which, when you think about it, actually makes very little sense) or assuming that consciousness caused matter (that consciousness would have existed before and created matter, which is an ever more preposterous idea) we are assuming that time causes both consciousness and matter, matter causes both time and consciousness, and consciousness causes both time and matter. They all cause each other due to our change in assumption that anything needs to cause anything to an assumption that the idea of cause is just bogus because the universe is infinitely complex.

The moment you plug in a value for R, R simultaneously becomes three values: 1. The value you plugged in for R, which now exists are pure abstraction outside of time 2. Infinity (aleph null), which is what is implied by R increasing by one every time it is observed 3. 0, which is the value of R if taken according to the present moment t

R also at the moment has the potential to become infinite sets of three simultaneous values: infinity, zero, and whatever value r corresponds to the infinite possible values of time.

/S3:8:21/ (FOOLISH) The more I think about it, the more impossible the task I have set forth to complete becomes. I’m going to have to settle for imperfection for now, but this imperfection is costly for reasons you have hopefully understood by now. Allow me to elucidate in the past. The code is EXPLANATION. (8:48) allow me to further elucidate in the present: This system of codes which I have devised will quickly (and is indeed already) spiral completely and exponentially out of control. The only solution I can see, and is the solution that all other writers use, is to edit their work. To change what they have already said, what they have already thought, in order to preserve a complete and comprehensive narrative for the future. This book is the antithesis of that idea. I will not be doing that. In fact, from the start it has been the one rule which I adhere to. Past thought is kept recorded as past thought. It is added to and elaborated on with current thought. The goal is to preserve all thoughts at all times, and to build upon my past thoughts at all times, keeping record in the present, in order to create a narrative which preserves its comprehensibility in the future without the need to delete what I’ve already written. What a task. Sticking to this task inevitably creates a session N, where I go in and tie up all the loose ends before finalizing the work. I may be fooling myself, but I intuit that there may be a great deal many ends to tie up. A number of ends which roughly correlates to the number of sessions. That’s a lot of codes to keep track of. Apologies to the reader. Just know, reader, to keep reading downwards, and not bother yourself with flipping around as I do. You may do so, of course, if you want to chart the same journey as I am, but you are not required to. Well, you may need to. That remains to be seen. Anyways, two more points to make on Session 3.

First is that there exists a session 2.5. This existed over the course of three or so hours and was recorded through text messaging. I do not know where I’ll end up putting it in, or when for that matter (if ever), but it will be a process. The code is SCHIZOPHRENIC

/S3:8:57/ ZENSHIT. In order to defecate, the bowels and thus the body must relax. This creates a wonderful opportunity to turn your next shit into a mindfulness session. Try focusing your mind on manifesting the relaxation of your bowels. I shit better when I tried it yesterday. Shat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/i76kb4/is_dialectical_materialism_a_scientific_method/g103kls/?context=3

The problems with 'ecstatic' experiences as a basis of Truth are that they provide no progress towards any sort of universal understanding they are completely inconsistent The whole point of philosophy is that we can write things down, talk about them, reason about them, come to some sort of shared understanding of the questions and potential answers. Ecstatic experiences provide nothing like that. Hundreds of years later Aquinas' written work is the source of a lot of discussion; his ecstatic experience is irrelevant except for the result that it prevented further writing.

Second, what's the difference between Aquinas' experience from that of a Sufi, a Buddhist, or a Pentecostal? Nothing, they are all equally valid (or not) and carry the same weight. An ecstatic experience can be gained by micro-dosing and mescaline, a vision quest, meditation / praying, tantra, a stroke and while they are relevant to the person experiencing it, they are all completely individual and inconsistent. Maybe you'll think the secrets of the universe have been revealed to you, but the secrets are different from everyone else's secrets.

(this is not to say that hallucinogenics are not useful for depression and/or opening people up to the world; they can be. But they are not a path to universal truth)

You say they are inconsistent, but with DMT specifically you can find a lot of people who have the same experience.

I went to a Catholic university. I had a logic class that concentrated on fallacy and then a St. Thomas AQ class right after. Man, talk about crossover. The AQ prof hated me.

🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲

Greatest philosopher of the medieval era? William of Ockham never gets any respect.

🤡

The greatest philosopher? According to who?

There is no evidence of God and no evidence of divine revelations. This is a sub about philosophy, not theology. Philosophy involves critical thinking, not blind belief in the bible.

🐵🐵🐵

He's still a theologian with blind beliefs, not a philosopher. Philosophers don't take divine revelations as proof for anything.

If you believe in unproven nonsense like God or divine revelations, you have blind beliefs.

God can't be perfect person, perfection can't be changed so God would stay eternally alone without starting any "motion" - perfection is absolute stillness.

Starting anything is a change. If God at one point was at "nothing is in motion" and then "decides" to start a motion - was he perfect when there was no motion or is he prefect after the motion started?

We can't have both. You can't have "perfect circle except one point is not the same distance from the center as the others".

If there's anything outside this entity to be set in motion - where did "the outside" come from? Is there a greater entity that created motionless entity and "outside" that needs to be set in motion?

If God is ALL, then He's setting himself in motion, but was motionless - is he not "satisfied" with his stillness? what's the reason for changing "motionless" to "motion"? One must be perfect. We are in the process of perfection, but if we ever get there we'd say "that's it! Don't touch it!!"

Thomas Aquinas obviously had severe 'bipolar disorder', very common with so called 'mystics'.

What is experienced in the transcendental state of mania or a psychotic episode, cannot be distinguished from Mysticism.

Materialists above all try to find rational reasons for anything you can throw at them. When a materialist doesn't know the answer , others just say "haha you don't know the answer, that means I can just say the answer is whatever I want and we're done!" while the materialist continues to search for the real answer.

I mean you are describing mania. Look at the public bipolar poster child Kanye West and how he believes he is holy / genius / fulfilled when not on his meds. He is confirmed bipolar but acts like he's mystic.

There’s more but I can’t.

https://np.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/o696cv/the_greatest_philosopher_of_the_medieval_era/

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/jppibu/does_the_past_exist/

What an amazing commitment, I've been on reddit for several years now under various usernames and this person just never gives up on their quest to ignore all arguments which don't align with their belief in the non-existence of anything beyond the immediate present.

In a justifiably deleted post here by a consequentialist complaining about a “bias in favor of deontology” I commented

This is virtue ethics erasure.

Not particularly witty but I made myself laugh. Imagine my shock to log in this evening to this lovely private message

lmao yeah inner virtues are so much better than considering the actual consequences of your actions that affect others.

then instead of morality being a useful tool to help us live together, it becomes a circle jerk for self-righteousness

I will not give learns but I will go cuddle some Aquinas and drink.

Stay salty, eugenicists.

I feel like a passenger, I am looking, I am in this body, I am thinking of the inequality in this world I am a part of, I dont want to participate in society, my doctor says Im bipolar. He also says Im intelligent. I dont see a point. I feel tired. I feel like where am I going. I am just a passenger. I am not crazy. I feel disassociated from reality. I want to be put to sleep. A long one. But I am not crazy.

What contributions has he made to philosophy?

Let's see.

He went on the meta-philosophical level and managed to continue the line behind Nietzsche's question about how Christianity holds Western society together. In doing so he transcended even philosophy, because he analyses the philosophical currents especially existentialism and phenomenology from the next level.

In his magnum opus Maps of Meaning he devised an interdisciplinary actual world-theory that synthesises philosophy, neurology, theology, psychology, mythology and historic analysis.

In essence he found and accurately pinpointed the meta-religious aspect of life cross-culturally and was able to substantiate this across both hermeneutic and empirical disciplines. Thus he underlines the old idea of human beings having this divine spark in them which is the basis of many currents of the enlightenment.

His theory could well be the one to end the centuries old fight between religion and science. At the same time he apparently solved the question of what values are best suited for a society and also substantiated the theory of individualist totalitarianism i.e. the idea that a society becomes totalitarian bottum to top thus emphasizing the individual role.

Does that not suffice?

Bonus:

Too bad, but the idea of human dignity, which forms the cornerstone of Western law systems and its ideals, is based upon this presupposition of the Divine Spark that among others Kant pinpointed as part of the Enlightenment and that the founding fathers of the US held as self-evident truths and thus the paramount axiom of society in line with the currents of the Enlightenment that they flourished upon.