yes, I’m well aware of the difference between the giants and the gods, the former prefer the fruits of the physical, and the latter prefer the fruits of the spirit. I however, prefer to enjoy the fruits of the spirit while in the physical. the difference is that the giants do not have the option of ascending to a higher physical plane where the shits are made of gold, but the gods do.

If we have A that is and isn’t alongside B that is and isn’t then are either A or B true or false? — I like sushi

this is incoherent, what does this even mean? you need to be more concise in your language, you have a very noticeable problem with clarity. you’re sounding like a muggle.

I think the problem here is not me, but the ego of the Western man in general, which is so alienated from its source that the existence of spirit is considered to be an impossibility to them. The ego of the Western man has become so big that the average Western man thinks that just because he doesn't have a direct perception of spirit within himself that the perception of spirit is impossible. he then goes around pointing out fallacies in other peoples philosophies while ignoring his own, mainly, the fact that spirit has the potential to exist, and therefore cannot and should not ever be ruled out completely. you ask for the evidence? its within yourself; you cannot prove to me what your phenomenological experience entails just the same as I cannot prove to you what mine entails. I can tell you what mine is like, and you can compare it to your own, and that's it...until you do what is necessary to experience spirit for yourself, you will not experience it. And further, if you have the attitude that it does not and cannot exist, you will never eat fruit with the gods, but continue eat and take shits with the animals.

Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate. — Fooloso4

he doesn't have to say it, it is implied in the other things he says, if the all is one, there can be no distinction between subject and predicate, unless the subject and the predicate are one, which is what my philosophy entails.

n any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists. — Fooloso4

right, the word existence points to the essence of existence; the essence exists, the word is just a pointer to the essence.

As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4

my claim is self-evident; that you cannot have the existence of multiplicity without the prior distinction between the concepts of one and many; meaning that the concepts one and many, or likeness and distinction, to name a few, necessarily precede the existence of the universe. Also, the abstract laws of logic necessarily precede the existence of the things that they limit. fools often proclaim that the abstract laws of physics are constructions of the mind of man, and this is true, that the laws of physics created by man are not the true laws, but representations and estimates of the real laws; which are abstract concepts that limit and precede the existence of the objects that they limit; now, the laws themselves, cannot limit, they are the reason for the limitations of things, and in between them there lies intentionality.

There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified. — Fooloso4

its very simple. being is awareness, thought is the object of awareness; the former is the essence of being, the latter is its quality.

Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists. — Fooloso4

yes, actuality cannot return to nothing; nothing does not possess the potential to contain actuality. If "it" has the potential to exist, it does not exist in actuality in the present moment, but can exist in actuality in the future. after the cookie has been eaten, it is no longer actualized; however, since existence cannot forget, its essence doesn't return to non-existence, but to potentiality, that is, according to my philosophy an absolute memory.

The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating. — Fooloso4

the internal changes of things do not exist for themselves, but for something else; that something else can be nothing other than the quality of the object as it is perceived by the senses, and also, the function object as it relates to nature as a whole. the cookie always remains a cookie so long as it is actualized; and if there were not an aspect of the cookie which were unchanging, it could become a tree, or a cow, or a blade of grass from moment to moment in time. the cookie does not possess the potential to become anything other than a cookie, or become non-existent in the relative sense; maybe you're eating cows and trees? I'm only eating cookies, and if i set the cookie in a jar for 100 years, and them come back to eat it, lo and behold, it's still a fucking cookie; how is this concept so hard to understand for you? that the essence of a thing remains unchanged so long as it exists. one can grab the cookie and toss it like a throwing star and use it as a weapon; but still does not change its original, universal essence, only its essence relative to myself.

Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something. — Fooloso4

well, if that which exists necessarily has an essence, that which does not exist cannot have an essence; I only need to know the essence of existence to know the essence of non-existence; so I'm not speaking of nothing; only of the law of non-contradiction which applies to nothingness, for if there is nothingness, then nothingness is not something. it cannot be spoken of in correct terms using language, and this is because it doesn't have an essence.

I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger. — Fooloso4

I've read enough of his work to know that he thinks something comes from nothing, and that's all one needs to know to know that his philosophy isn't worth much. He also denies the existence of Husserl's Transcendental Ego, so I'm not with him on that either. I see him as a philosophical propagandist more than anything.

This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being. — Fooloso4

he distinguishes, but concentrates only on being and not being itself. he doesn't establish the essence of being itself and then use that essence to interpret the essence of being in the world, as he should. this is my method. the correct method. otherwise we're trying to give meaning to beings in the world without knowing the context in which they exist, and the essence of that context then could change our knowledge of those objects once discovered; so knowledge without knowledge of the whole isn't really knowledge but speculation.

This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness! — Fooloso4

yes, we know each other personally. You wouldn't understand, because you are not yet mad, and judging by your conception of what is and what is not true, you'll be stuck here for a long, long time.

I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter! — Fooloso4

well, considering the fact that you just got owned in debate by a man who's studied philosophy for two years, you don't know much!

It's not necessary that the will "set the brain in motion", all it needs to do is affect, or change the motions which are already there. — Metaphysician Undercover

in which case there is still freedom.

This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, existence is not something that is, what is exists. — Fooloso4

and ‘what is’ includes that which is perceptible, they which is potentially perceptible, and that which is not potentially perceptible. that is, the changing and actualized aspect of existence which I call the ‘Active Principle of Being’ and the unchanging aspect of existence which I call the ‘Passive Principle of Being’ Existence is something that is in the sense that it is born a verb and a noun because it has a changing aspect an unchanging aspect. My philosophy is a merging of Parmenides who says that therefore the subject “Existence” isn’t deserving of a predicate and a verb “is” because nothing changes in the absolute sense of the word; and Heraclitus who says that everything changes and nothing is unchanging. Both are true. It’s Essence never changes and will never change and its Quality is always changes.

Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4

this is an assumption.

Concepts are human artifacts. — Fooloso4

another assumption even more wild than the first.

When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. — Fooloso4

it returns to the potential for existence to be which is not nothing. so what is it?

When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. — Fooloso4

if you’re going to define ‘existence’ as that which is in space and actualized, then of course, the cookie no longer exists. but the cookies Identity, that is, that internal changes which perpetuates it’s existence, live on after it dies, just the same as humans.

You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist. — Fooloso4

here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of logic and philosophy.

Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing. — Fooloso4

everything that exists can be represented by a set. so in all things, that is, all nested hierarchies of sets, are contained within a set which contains itself and does not simultaneously, the set of all sets must exists because all things have a contingent existence on something beyond it which also contains and precedes it; that is to say that the set of all sets exists so it must have an essence. no man hitherto (besides me) has been able to solve the nature of the essence of the set of all sets. Most philosophers, like the ones you hold up high on a pedestal, a pedestal supported by hardened feces, don’t even think that there is a set which contains all sets of contingent things. it’s no wonder than that your knowledge of existence is so limited and naive. What I mean by “Non-Existence” is that which has no essence whatsoever. What I’m saying is that which has no essence cannot contain that which does; so there must be a set of all sets.

Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is alone. — Fooloso4

here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy once again, because this is a quote from Heidegger . However, Heidegger himself talks almost exclusively about being in the world and not being itself in the absolute sense of the word. he doesn’t make positive claims about being itself if he even mentions it. I do, and I have strong arguments.

Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is? — Fooloso4

it is knowledge of the whole, yes, of the essence of the set of all sets. that which contains, preserves, and disintegrates all things. I imagine that I will be considered the greatest philosopher of all time afterI die. I know you think that this is laughable, but you really you know nothing of my writings or what I experience within myself, so the joke is on you.

There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'? — Fooloso4

right, hence the reason that which exists persists, and thereby has a different moment of time so long as it exists. a and b are identical if a contains b and b contains a; if a and b are mutually exclusive, or if one contains the other but the other not the one, they are not identical and one is contingent upon the other. a is a is not identical to a is b unless b and a have the same essence, or rather identity, where identity = quality (subset) essence. if a is identical to b, there can only be a=b, obviously. but since Identity has two aspects, there can be difference. this is basic stuff. stuff which hasn’t really been figured out because no one has created principles of epistemology and ontology, or if they have philosophers don’t use them for some reason.

The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be. — Fooloso4

I don’t care what Aristotle says of them, my conception of what they are, and what being is not the same as his; nor does it have to be. He thought of the concepts, I’m assigning them difference essences than he did. The Essence of Existence cannot become Non-Existence because what it is to be cannot be not to be, I.e. E=E≠¬E; meaning that the essence of Existence is identical to what I call “Absolute Objectivity” that is, the unchanging aspect of Existence, that is, the Absolute Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton.

The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean. — Fooloso4

well, Non-Existence in the absolute sense of the word is non-existent, meaning that in the absolute sense of the word there is only Existence, but alas, in the relative sense of the word, there is the concept of non-existence, and it comes prepackaged with everything that comes into existence; so the question must be answered as to how the concept of non-existence comes to be when Non-Existence is not?

I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. — Fooloso4

what I’m saying is that everybody thinks about beings but never about being itself, when wisdom is predicted on the knowledge of being itself.

the law of Identity and law of contradiction are eternal, and its impossible for this not to be so. If they weren’t concepts which pointed to essence, the essence of existence itself, the Essence of Existence could become Non-Existence from one moment to the next in time and here could be no continuation of existence in the relative sense. So Existence, the Essence of, must be equal to itself in each moment of time so long as it exists, and it exists eternally so the law of identity and contradiction are eternal.

I think that the brain is always active so I don't really agree with this idea of setting brain processes into motion. — Metaphysician Undercover

these processes are controlling the body; if it is not true that the will can set the brain in motion, all of your wills and the words and actions that result from them happen by necessity or by chance and not by your own volition. and if there is an observer, that observer is just watching the will and the effects which follow from it as a passive observer and not an active agent. and when the brain ‘makes you stop thinking,’ you have no say in the manner, because you don’t have a will if it cannot start or stop brain processes. you are not the active agent of your thoughts by the passive watcher of them. this can be disproven in a few seconds through some phenomenological observation. it’s one of the most absurd positions ever held, and even more absurd that it’s considered to be rational by educated people.

I think you’re the fool here. I was referencing the mystical experience regarding the fall. you’re talking about me falling. That’s not gonna happen.

Well I guess you are asking for a difficult thing. It sounds like you want a co-creator of the philosophy. Even if people were willing to do it, they'd be afraid that they wouldn't know how. — ghost

I don’t need a co-creator. I need someone very familiar with the history of metaphysics and logic to critique my first principles on their validity and soundness, mostly. It’s actually quite simple in its elegance and complexity; much more simple and straightforward than say Kant and Hegel’s philosophy.

We learn most from rhetorical wounds scored fairly against us and from overhearing ourselves as we try to make ourselves understood to the stranger. — ghost

yes. this is true. but I haven’t really found much constructive criticism here.

Who needs professors though? Is there some validation to be had from academia? That's the tension in your position for me. If it's reason alone, then it's philosophy. If there's an appeal to rare experience, then most people will want to call it religion or mysticism.

You could always just pay a skilled writer to organize it so that it sings. That writer wouldn't even have to understand or agree with everything. — ghost

What I’m trying to have edited isn’t my prose, but my philosophical axioms, principles, and definitions, the logical basis and framework of my philosophy. I didn’t mentioned mysticism, it’s just that my ideas are so rare today in philosophy. for example, I think that objects are subsets of subsets and that all lies within; that all is contained within a non-spatial point and that therefore a non-spatial aspect to reality exists as well as two variations of time, a relative and an absolute time. I also think that the psyche is dual in the sense that there are two minds and two wills within us, and also that the source of the will is beyond space (the perceiver of the perceiver); and also that concepts precede the existence of things and things are just nested hierarchies of actualized concepts. I also think that there’s a soul and an objective basis for morality....so yeah, needless to say, post-modernism and my philosophy aren’t compatible. People usually respond the way this sushi guy does, with contempt, disbelief, and no rational counterarguments to justify them.

It is unusual for people to pay to have their philosophy critiqued so it’s no wonder people are unwilling to believe you’re genuine (I don’t and I’m talking to you). — I like sushi

I solved the problem of causation today. I’ve solved the problem of subjects and objects. I’ve established 10 new principles of ontology and epistemology and 17 general principles of metaphysics. I’ve done all of this in two years with no college degree. I’m doing just fine. And in ten years, I suspect that your opinion of me will have changed drastically.

I'm surprised that you money isn't talking. Are you ambivalent about being critiqued? I'd think that there are lots of underpaid philosophy majors out there. — ghost

I emailed like 20 professors from various respected universities around the country and even several from the local D3 college in my area and I got zero responses even despite offering to pay money. One thing you might not know is if you mention the word “mysticism” everyone runs as if it’s the plague or something. I keep hearing phrases like “that would be considered mysticism” from people on this forum, and when they say this they act as if it’s a contradiction or an impossible conclusion or something. little do they know that they’re dead wrong.

Thanks for the answers. I guess what I'm trying to specify is how much you associate rationality with mysticism. Clearly you are interested in concepts. So the truth as you see and value it has a conceptual aspect. So that leaves me trying to figure out where the mysticism comes in. — ghost

I call my philosophy ‘rational mysticism.’ Typically the mystics avoid rational thinking because the absolute cannot e known rationally, according to them. But I think that’s baloney, and that the laws of logic extend their way back eternally, and that since the laws of logic apply to the absolute, that we can know it. the mysticism comes from the notion that consciousness precedes and contains all things and that consciousness can exist apart form bodies, and bodies only exist to both expand and limit the concepts that can be known, also, feeling is only possible with bodies, and also seeing.

My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's golden and yet connected to brutality, a kind of holy violence that laughs at all things mortal. Personality becomes a transparent mask for the one greed for status. The mask is also the primary tool of this greed. — ghost

Yes, some are beyond what others can understand. People must know that since the all is mind; nearly anything is possible; with expanded consciousness comes less limitations on how the mind can effect the world.

Nietzsche was a mystic but a fallen mystic; hence the reason he had such a negative attitude towards mystics; I have read many of his books; I will be incorporating his philosophy of the overman in my own book, but not much else. He’s really created a lot of chaos here on earth that I have to now fix.

This is creepy, obviously, but it only describes an aspect of a personality who also loves deeply in the usual way and fits in with the world, just with an extra wicked gleam in the eye that comes and goes. A person can forget that they are only pretending to be someone or resume pretending that they are outside of all that is trapped inside. Perhaps you'd call this a left handed or demonic path. Altruism is not at its center. Yet it's not cruel without reason. Why should 'it' interrupt its self-satisfaction and sober joy for some low level bullshit? — ghost

Like the moon, everyone had a dark side. there is a demonic aspect to being; only because nothing can be forgotten, and all the memories that we create are stored forever. this is what creates “hell” every person, and especially the mystic, is sort of on an island, surround by demons, as it were, and these thoughts can influence people if they get depressed and the mystic if his energy is lowered. I think that people who pursue this path will eventually find more pain than joy; they all come back to love eventually.

Either way your philosophical proposal falls before it even starts as you attach absolute claims to sensible items. Logic is abstract not existent. That is how you open your and that is why it fails instantly. — I like sushi

I’ve edited quite a bit and done quite a bit of thinking about the document I sent you. When I sent it to you it was 10 pages, now it’s 17. And I’ve changed the stipulations of my principles of ontology to include universal and absolute truths only. so it doesn’t fail from the start. Of course, logic is eternal and existence has always been identical to itself so it’s always been a subset of the law of identity.

By this, if it isn’t clear enough already, I mean that you flip from logical abstraction to objects of perception as if they are interchangeable. If A is a part of B and you then say both A and B are existing objects you’ve stepped outside of pure logic yet you continue as if you haven’t stepped outside of pure logic. — I like sushi

I use the phrase “ontologically distinct entities” meaning that they can be abstract or concrete. I say that one can refer to them (objects) as abstractions because the essence of a thing is abstract and its qualities are concrete and (quality is a subset of essence). This is why I say that quality is really just an actualized concept or set of concepts.

Claims of some mystical truth that will change the world followed by fear of plagiarism don’t add up. You mean to put your fame and pride before the benefits to humanity? That doesn’t sound like a particularly ‘loving’ or humane rationale. — I like sushi

My philosophical principles and axioms are the best ever created. Spinoza’s don’t compare. I’ve found a way to bridge ontology and logic, a way that works in every case. I don’t need to use mystical truths to convince them of anything. I will release the axioms and principles just before the book comes out.

If you’re coming from a phenomenological perspective then say so. The phenomenological approach is the only instance where the so called ‘real’ doesn’t matter. It is essentially a science of subjectivity and so cannot then be extended as an existent absolute. — I like sushi

I am writing in phenomenology. I have man ideas that haven’t been spoken on before, but I don’t root my philosophy in it. Mostly, I’m concerned with proving that all objects are contained within the subject.

Even if you do actually have something slightly original to say I fear your lack of attention to the concepts used will make it illegible - definitions of definitions and a requirement to address epistemic and semantic problems. It will be a very hard thing to do and require concentration and luck; and you’ll never be able to express something tangible to anyone else, ‘felt’, without physical evidence to back you up. — I like sushi

can’t find anyone to read it and critique it who can give constructive feedback, unfortunately, I can’t even pay anyone to critique it. I have the first principles of philosophy here and with a little help, or even a little more thought and effort on my part, they can be revolutionary. All facts require interpretation. How are we to interpret them properly without knowable of the absolute context in which they exist? My goal is to establish what must be true for science to be true, so that we can know how to give meaning to the facts.

Humility will kill you, but clearly you need to die before you can get off that treadmill. That is my honest view (if I’m wrong then I guess we’ll see how things pan out for you over the next few years). — I like sushi

Humility? Don’t you mean egotism? don’t you think I was chosen to have the experiences I have for a reason? they pretty much force me to write everyday, not because no one is going to read or be inspired by my writings, but because man are. I’m going to be the best human to ever do it., this I am sure of.

yes, I’m well aware that “man is a bridge between man and overman, a bridge over an abyss,” as Nietzsche said. I’ve spent many of days in the abyss now, and I think I know why it is and how to avoid it.

this experience isn’t triggered by that kind of stuff. have you ever read any of the esoteric writings of like Manly p. Hall? I suggest that you read his ‘Secret Teachings of All Ages.’ You will find what you’re looking for there. It’s a fascinating book too. You’ll very much enjoy it, I presume.

Yes, many, many more.

it sounds like an altered state of consciousness - something I’ve experienced myself. There are various triggers, what were yours? What was the lead up to this? — I like sushi

Yes, it’s altered, permanently altered. It’s been a slow development. I’ve had so many good memories, like the day back a few years ago when I discovered that I could flex my brain hemispheres for the first time, and also that they could be flexed for me; this dubstep song came on and my brain just went crazy flexing with the beat and I just smiled really wide...there are so many experiences like this that are very special to me.

You should listen to the New Agers more; there are some things that they are right about. You can approach it with a skeptical mind, that’s fine; but know that there is a way to experience this and that the Eastern traditions have known about it for thousands of years. It can be accessed through mantra mediation and philosophical contemplation, as well as the opening of the heart towards all beings; you must place love and reason up on a pedestal because these are the the qualities which the Creator values the most.

not in detail, no; there is an oath of silence; I’ve told you about the detachment of the will. also I can tell you that when I move my awareness around my the circumference of my head I do not feel what you feel, I feel a crown with 16 spikes. You guys think that this stuff is a joke but it’s real and beyond what people consider to be amazing. The subset is amazing but the mystical body is the sweetest fruit in all of existence.

Would you say that you are still organizing that book? And that the ideas we see here will find their way into the final book? — ghost

I’ve been writing, reading, and organizing for two-three years now. When I started, I basically knew nothing. Yesterday I finished the most important section of my book on ‘The First Principles of Philosophy;’ it has 10 principles of ontology and epistemology and 17 general principles or axioms of metaphysics. I have many many coherent paragraphs finished and 100s of pages of writing but nothing is really finalized yet. I’m organizing as I go though now. It’s coming together nicely. I’m working on a section on ‘The Freedom and Phenomenology of the Will’ right now which I expect will be legendary because of its profundity.

That suggests to me that your perspective can indeed be communicated through concepts? — ghost

to some extent, yes. It requires an extensive knowledge of what truly is; a knowledge that most all mystics have hitherto failed to provide.

Do you understand the dark forces to have a grudge against your mission? Or are they ultimately well meaning people who just misunderstand the mission and accidentally oppose? Or ?

Thank you also for being open and answering my questions. — ghost

yes, all of them place the will above love, the collective will; therein lies the distinction between angels and demons; both of which are above man, and this is because he man who wills to do great things is greater than the man who wills only to exist. the demons care only about themselves, the angels put the interests of others over their own; so they oppose anyone who might get in the way of this mission, and say, let humans know that they are enslaved to them.

So did you begin to have a mystical experience and it has continued unabated? I ask sincerely. I am curious. Maybe it really is different from my experiences. — ghost

yes, it advanced and advanced a lot. but slowly over several years. I cannot say too much about it, but I can tell you that the will and awareness, which is generally bound to the body, becomes unbound, and the body that you once knew, in awareness, is not the same as it once was; so when I move my awareness about my body, I feel magical things, while the normal human just feels their physical body.

The mystic bluntly tells people that they just don't get it, that they are locked out of the secret (by a lack of faith or a cowardly conformity or...?) Why don't we get it? Are we locked out? Are you here to win us over? Enjoy your superiority? Look for the few others who are chosen ? — ghost

if you’ve read my responses to people, you will have probably noticed that I speak as if my truths are absolute, and this is because they are. I will be releasing a book with the next two years that will expound upon the truth in great detail, and if all goes as planned, it will change the world. Man has been living in darkness for long enough now, so it’s time that he poke his head outside the cave and see what he’s been missing. I am here to help make that happen. unfortunately, there are dark forces fighting against me, trying to steal their minds away from me and the truth, but they will not prevail because my mission comes from the highest of the high.

don't forget that brain processes can be set into motion by the will; so to say that the will is contingent upon brain processes is a contradiction. the object of perception is an effect of brain processes, that is, the sound which correlates to both a word and a thought, and also a thing or a relationship between things, is physical, yes, but not the will which manifests it. The source of the will is beyond space; it doesn't even have real existence in its own, its merely a bridge between the potential for change to be and change itself....what is born, dies, and is then resurrected again never truly dies and was thus never truly born? The will.

For me these 'mystic' states were tangled up with iconoclasm. The 'illusions' and limitations of mundane thinking and even perhaps mundane morality are 'seen through. — ghost

there is a difference between transient mystical states and permanent mystical states. all of the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time experienced a constant mystical state of consciousness. If one does not have this experience, it is possible to become pretty good, like wittgenstein good, or Heidegger good, but not Plato good, or better than that.

What is the concept of non-existence? In what sense does this concept come into being? — Fooloso4

if you cannot figure it out for yourself using the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, you won't understand it. I'm trying to begin a dialectic, but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others.

I think it was Hume who successfully devastated any and all teleological arguments for God. — zerotheology

Hume, as well as all previous philosophers failed to account for "vertical causation." the processes which perpetuate the existences of objects while they make effects in others (horizontal causation). Horizontal causation is contingent upon vertical causation. Much more can be said about this.

In addition I would suggest that the OP's version relies on the infinite regress that is always possible with certain problematic concepts. — zerotheology

the infinite regress problem only applies to the spatial aspect of existence; it does not apply to the non spatial; in the non-spatial, using concepts, the regress ends in a circular paradox.

I would also point out that the only important thing about pointing out that existence is understood before non-existence is that it reflects the truth that belief precedes doubt. — zerotheology

this is not what I mean; what I mean is that the potential for a thing to become non-existent is contained within it at birth, meaning that (non-existence is a subset of existence)...a lot can be said about this...I keep asking people to explain to me how this is possible, but since they are unable to think for themselves, and their philosophies are composed of the words and concepts of other philosophers, other philosophers who know nothing about the essence of being itself, so of course, they cannot explain to me how this is possible.

The OP seems to subscribe to an essentialist or Platonic view of concepts that simply does not hold up after Wittgenstein — zerotheology

wittgenstein is philosophical propagandist; Platonism presupposes that all concepts are eternal, but this is not actually the case; only some concepts are eternal...so wittgenstein attacked a strawman, not idealism itself, or rather, the notion that concepts precede the existence of things and things are indeed actualized concepts.

Lastly I would make the old argument that the attempt to make belief in God reasonable is a form of idolatry that distorts the God one is arguing for in a way that makes that God monstrous at worst and uninteresting at best. Job's friends come to mind. — zerotheology

belief isn't necessary; if you drop all of your preconceived notions and let the logic lead you, you will be lead to God. if you open your heart and your mind, you will experience God within yourself. but this is only for the greats. I don't think you have it in you to become great. For the rest, reason or faith must suffice.

It's not moot, because the fundamental components of the world are particles that do not behave as we'd expect from our experience in the macro world. The world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Your metaphysics doesn't predict this, and it's not even compatible with it. Therefore your metaphysics is moot. — Relativist

those particles are not particles, but waves; they may exist as particles, at times, but when they're not particles, they're mathematical waves with no localized position in space and time...and also, even if they were particles, they wouldn't have an infinite number of parts within parts, but would necessarily cease in a smallest part with no parts, that is, a spatially unextended part, or abstract set, that is, an idea. the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical but the world is not all that exists. my metaphysics predicts this; in my philosophy, the wave function itself involves the convergence of two waves of potentiality becoming actualized by perception. the set of waves associated with the object and the set of waves associated with the mind of the subject, in which, when perception occurs, a fourier transformation occurs and perception is made possible. but when there is no perception, the waves are distinct and the world goes on in a state of potentiality, in which pure subjectivity continues the flow of things when they are not perceived.

Determined does not equate to intended.

Although it may be reasonable to assume the past is finite, the future is potentially infinite - so even this heat death is not actually a "final" state. An analysis like this is rooted in obsolete classical physics rather than quantum physics, so what the infinite future may bring is impossible to know. — Relativist

it's not determinate anyways because the chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is broken in the quantum substratum of reality and all things come into being from the micro to the macrocosm...similarly, all causal chains act from the mirco to the macro too...so its a mute point.

You're attacking a poorly constructed strawman. Physicalism does not entail objects being contained in the mind. — Relativist

You're attacking a very poorly constructed strawman here... physicalism entails that the antithesis is true; that's what the paragraph says; that "the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not (entirely) contained within the mind" and that there a "mind-independent" reality can exist. I say that a mind-independent reality is impossible. If there is no mind-independent reality, reality is an illusion, and an illusion implies an illusionist.

"Solve the unresolved questions..."? At best, solutions can be proposed - they cannot be verified. Proposing a mereology is reasonable metaphysics, but you're mistaken if you think you can determine metaphysical truth. Nothing more than coherence is attainable. — Relativist

solution can be verified when man attains the next stage in his evolutionary process of consciousness. he will then be able to verify the solutions that I propose, within himself, where he can find the source of all creation. The fool searches for the answers in the world, the wise man finds them within himself.

I've established a mereological system of metaphysics that's more better than any other that has ever been established; and my philosophy follows deductively from the absolute truth that existence has always been, that is, the absolute truth that existence is and non-existence is not in the absolute sense of the word.

Physicalism needn't even be true. If the universe evolves deterministically (which seems likely)
there is no "final cause". — Relativist

if the universe must end by means of "heat death" and the law of entropy, it necessarily has an end, and if the universe is deterministic, that end was predetermined, so in saying that the universe will die eventually and that it is also deterministic, you are saying that it has a first cause; final causes are deterministic you know...determinism and intentionality are synonyms.

Now, if it is true that the universe must end do to the law of entropy and "heat death," it must be the case that the universe isn't past eternal and thereby came into being once upon a time; in which case, it has a first and final cause....this final cause, however, isn't set in stone, just the same as you can begin thinking with the intention of explaining a point, and change your final destination in thought and start thinking about something different, the final cause of the universe too can be changed, and this is because all change has its origin in thought. but to know this, you must first prove that the set of all sets has an essence which involves subjectivity.

to solve the unsolved questions about the nature of existence, one must first ascertain the essence of the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, that is, the set of all contingent things. to do this, one must relate ontology and set theory, or rather, the notion of precedence and set containment or non-containment. by doing this, one can establish a set of principles of epistemology and ontology and determine the nature of the set of all sets. to do this, we must start with the relationship between the object and the subject, is the subject contained within the object, the object within the subject or are they mutually exclusive? I call the "hard problem of consciousness" the "retard problem of consciousness" because, in order to make the world "real" and "concrete" the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not contained within subjects. In understanding that all objects are contained within the mind, all the answers fall into place.

1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it. — Relativist

like I said, when we act, our reason for acting (final cause) is determined prior to or at the time of our will to act, its first cause. if our will to act were the product of previous material cause, it would be impossible for us to have knowledge of the reason for our actions, because if it were the case that the will is a material cause and not a first cause, it wouldn’t have come into being yet; that is to say that we wouldn’t have come to know of it until AFTER the action was carried out. Our knowledge of the reason for our action would then be an inference and not a deduction.

If one final cause exists, and pertinently, it does, and the nature of our will guarantees it, there must have been a first cause in the absolute sense as well, because final causes would be impossible if there were only material causes; that is to say that a final cause cannot come into being inbetween two material causes in a chain of infinite material causes.

Physicalism is possibly true. — Relativist

so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd.

intentionality, by definition, is determining the final cause of an action at the time of or before instantiating from potentiality. so anywhere this is occurring, there is intentionality. when I say that the concept of non-existence is born with us, it must be so that the concept of non-existence came into being prior to existence; and since non-existence is not in the absolute sense, it must be nothing but a concept in mind, and therefore mind must precede the existence of matter.

As I said...if you have something to say...say it. — Frank Apisa

in time, young padwan, in time.

Stop being cute.

You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."

Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.

This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.

I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/ — Frank Apisa

you already exposed yourselves as fools when you failed to understand the ramifications of my OP. Since nobody seems to think that there is any "evidence" or reason to believe that final causes even exist, I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be. did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'?

can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being?

But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa

already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done.

Every indication is that it is impossible to determine if at least one GOD exists...using logic, reason, science, or math.

It appears it just cannot be done. — Frank Apisa

why would you think that?

i’m not sure what you mean by “support?” which definition are you using? and when you give me the one you mean, all of those words are going to have to be defined for us to understand what you mean by support, so we can never truly define it because the chain of definitions needed to define the word “support” is too long.

instinctual drives — I like sushi

the instinctual drive presents itself to my conscious mind; I make a decision as to whether I give into t or not; sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. If I did not have freedom of will, I would be bound by my instinctual will, not alas, I am not, so I must, in he limited sense of the word, free.

maybe you don’t understand the definition of support. maybe we should break down the term as per usual and never get past the pitfalls of language like usual? or maybe you can stop responding to my posts because not once have you said anything of value.

your Will has a final cause and therefore a first cause; when each person is born, their potential to die is contained within themselves as well; and also, one’s potential to live is contained within their potential to die; so life itself involves a first and final cause. if you are to say that our coming into being does not involve a first cause; you must say that our existence is a result of a set of material causes that extend backwards into indefinitely into time, and that that set of causes end with our death and that an infinite number of material causes happened only so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity.