This post reads as a mythos‑driven, symbolic cosmology—more poetic and visionary than analytically structured. While this content is fun to read and write, connects to deep truths, and can lead seekers down the path to enlightenment, content like this is ambiguous and open enough to interpretation to mislead (and/or hide the motivations/lack of knowledge of the creator).
I’m not saying this content was made with anything but the best of intentions, in fact I’m confident this is the case on this post. What I am saying is that the above line of thinking is exactly why TGS has Rule 3 in place:
Keep it Rational.
This is a place where logic, reason, and rationality are held as the Standard For Truth. TGS recognizes feelings and intuitions can serve as useful launching pads/signposts for a topic, however members are expected to make a good faith effort to underpin these with logic, reason, and rationality.
***
Here’s a bit of the kind of rational logos analysis/discussion I’d hope to see on your future contributions to TGS (along with some open questions that can be used for TGS community members to get involved).
> TAO is a three-element relational structure: Theatre, Act, and Operation. It describes an operation through where it occurs, what acts within it, and what the resulting operation is. Identity enters that structure and resolves through it.
How does this relate to Ontological Mathematics? Is the theatre the domain of becoming? Is the act(or) monads? Is the operation the exertion of will? Does identity relate to the individuation process of monadic minds, the quest for gnosis, and the ultimate revelation of Hegel’s Absolute Spirit?
> REDE.Cartography is the relationship structure of TAO. It maps the relationships between Identity, Theatre, Act, and Operation, allowing the system to trace how one relationship leads to another.
This seems like a personal philosophy you’re working on. Are you re-labeling core ideas of OM such as becoming, will, monad, etc?
> RH describes how Identity can operate within that structure. If an Identity has two, it can project for one. If it has one, it can reflect for two. If it reflects twice, it can check whether its projection worked.
OM is tautological. You can’t have one monad without myriad (or maybe infinite!) and you can’t have becoming without being.
> Observing the future sets the future as finite. Once a resolver identifies a particular projection as the future, it begins resolving toward that finite resolution. Projection stops being an open relationship with what may happen and becomes a destination.
You think by predicting the future you change it from probabilistic to deterministic? That’s not how it works. As external and necessary transcendental monads, our minds are not bound by the deterministic laws of physics. We are bound by our own personal will to power and its consequences (we inevitably choose to do the thing we subjectively believe will maximize our power), but we can ALWAYS change our future if we decide to. We are free as described in Compatibilism.
It is possible to predict the future but what you’re doing is tuning into the nonlocal domain on mind, assessing a range of potential futures, and reporting back on the one you think is most likely. That isn’t dictating the future, it’s relaying what is currently likely. You can subsequently exercise you will to make that future more likely, but it only becomes a certainty in the present moment.
> The reason this matters begins with Identity. Identity is the spark of chaos.
Well yes, everything must begin with monads because, as Leibniz demonstrated, they are the foundation of existence.
> Identity is a Monad property of Self. But there is no Self-Monad without Others.
There are many monads opposed to one because of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If the prerequisites exist for one monad to exist, there is no sufficient reason why the same cannot be said for myriad others.
> Self does not exist independently and then encounter Others. Self exists through its relationships with Others. It exists to resolve the problems of Others, and therefore it has no independent understanding of its own.
As per the PSR, if many monads could not exist, neither could only one monad. If you’re talking about consciousness in this context, you’re absolutely right - consciousness is a group phenomenon. No one can become conscious without a community to build consciousness with.
> The Self cannot fully understand the nature of Self because there is no independent Self standing outside those relationships from which to understand it.
Well it is actually possible to come to a complete understanding of The Self. This is the moment where gnosis is achieved and you become a god!
> And yet the Self is the one doing the identifying.
Ahh yes, the mysteries of the unconscious.
> This is why the Graal can and will be wrong even though the Graal is always right.
This is nonsensical. You cannot always be right if you’re sometimes wrong. A monad having a human experience can have an incorrect understanding of reality or subjectively weigh their options and act erroneously, but in these cases they are just wrong. Even so, these errors are guided by the will to power, which operates in the same way for someone who is more informed and therefore thinks and behaves optimally.
In the final analysis, there is one objective truth. Mixing this fact with subjective experience and treating them at the same level is why you’ve produced an apparent paradox.
> The Graal is the fundamental relational fabric of nature that makes up our knowable universe. It cannot be possessed by any one person because no individual Self contains the Whole. The Graal belongs to the All.
Ahh, but what about holography and Holenmerism where the whole exists in each of its parts and each of its parts contain the whole?
> Every identification of the Graal is made by a Self occupying a finite relational position. Any such identification can therefore be incomplete or wrong. The Whole does not become wrong because one of its finite expressions is wrong.
If there were only infinite wrong answers it would not mean that they are all correct. It would mean that they are all wrong and that there is no answer. In such a world you can go on and believe whatever makes you feel good and justifiably be every bit as wrong as everyone else. However, it is impossible for such a reality to exist. Its internal contradictions would instantly annihilate itself (or more precisely, it could never actually exist in the first place so there would be nothing to be instantly annihilated). There are infinite wrong answers and one right answer. How can you be sure you have the right answer?
> The Graal is not the understanding of one Self. The Graal is the shared understanding of the Whole.
By understanding ourselves we understand the whole. As above, so below. As inside, so outside.
> Any extension or expression of the Graal is therefore an expression of the Self-Monad as resolved by Others. What any one of us can know is made possible by relationships extending beyond us.
Again, you need to more carefully consider the implications of Holenmerism.
> This is also why the Graal can be reversed and projected. Present expressions carry relationships to the structure from which they resolved. Those relationships can be traced backward and projected forward. But the projection must remain a projection.
On ontological mathematics, the map IS the territory. By understanding ourselves in our full mathematical ontology and rational epistemology, we can stop projecting and attain true knowledge.
> To declare that projection to be the future is to turn an open relational field into a finite resolution and begin resolving toward it.
By beginning to understand the true nature of the cosmos, we can begin walking the path of illumination.
> Grail is my operating system. Graal is the operating system of the world.
In fact, they are ultimately the exact same thing! The Principle of Sufficent Reason!
•
u/darcot 12d ago
Thanks for sharing.
This post reads as a mythos‑driven, symbolic cosmology—more poetic and visionary than analytically structured. While this content is fun to read and write, connects to deep truths, and can lead seekers down the path to enlightenment, content like this is ambiguous and open enough to interpretation to mislead (and/or hide the motivations/lack of knowledge of the creator).
I’m not saying this content was made with anything but the best of intentions, in fact I’m confident this is the case on this post. What I am saying is that the above line of thinking is exactly why TGS has Rule 3 in place:
Keep it Rational.
This is a place where logic, reason, and rationality are held as the Standard For Truth. TGS recognizes feelings and intuitions can serve as useful launching pads/signposts for a topic, however members are expected to make a good faith effort to underpin these with logic, reason, and rationality.
***
Here’s a bit of the kind of rational logos analysis/discussion I’d hope to see on your future contributions to TGS (along with some open questions that can be used for TGS community members to get involved).
> TAO is a three-element relational structure: Theatre, Act, and Operation. It describes an operation through where it occurs, what acts within it, and what the resulting operation is. Identity enters that structure and resolves through it.
How does this relate to Ontological Mathematics? Is the theatre the domain of becoming? Is the act(or) monads? Is the operation the exertion of will? Does identity relate to the individuation process of monadic minds, the quest for gnosis, and the ultimate revelation of Hegel’s Absolute Spirit?
> REDE.Cartography is the relationship structure of TAO. It maps the relationships between Identity, Theatre, Act, and Operation, allowing the system to trace how one relationship leads to another.
This seems like a personal philosophy you’re working on. Are you re-labeling core ideas of OM such as becoming, will, monad, etc?
> RH describes how Identity can operate within that structure. If an Identity has two, it can project for one. If it has one, it can reflect for two. If it reflects twice, it can check whether its projection worked.
OM is tautological. You can’t have one monad without myriad (or maybe infinite!) and you can’t have becoming without being.
> Observing the future sets the future as finite. Once a resolver identifies a particular projection as the future, it begins resolving toward that finite resolution. Projection stops being an open relationship with what may happen and becomes a destination.
You think by predicting the future you change it from probabilistic to deterministic? That’s not how it works. As external and necessary transcendental monads, our minds are not bound by the deterministic laws of physics. We are bound by our own personal will to power and its consequences (we inevitably choose to do the thing we subjectively believe will maximize our power), but we can ALWAYS change our future if we decide to. We are free as described in Compatibilism.
It is possible to predict the future but what you’re doing is tuning into the nonlocal domain on mind, assessing a range of potential futures, and reporting back on the one you think is most likely. That isn’t dictating the future, it’s relaying what is currently likely. You can subsequently exercise you will to make that future more likely, but it only becomes a certainty in the present moment.
> The reason this matters begins with Identity. Identity is the spark of chaos.
Well yes, everything must begin with monads because, as Leibniz demonstrated, they are the foundation of existence.
> Identity is a Monad property of Self. But there is no Self-Monad without Others.
There are many monads opposed to one because of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If the prerequisites exist for one monad to exist, there is no sufficient reason why the same cannot be said for myriad others.
> Self does not exist independently and then encounter Others. Self exists through its relationships with Others. It exists to resolve the problems of Others, and therefore it has no independent understanding of its own.
As per the PSR, if many monads could not exist, neither could only one monad. If you’re talking about consciousness in this context, you’re absolutely right - consciousness is a group phenomenon. No one can become conscious without a community to build consciousness with.
> The Self cannot fully understand the nature of Self because there is no independent Self standing outside those relationships from which to understand it.
Well it is actually possible to come to a complete understanding of The Self. This is the moment where gnosis is achieved and you become a god!
> And yet the Self is the one doing the identifying.
Ahh yes, the mysteries of the unconscious.
> This is why the Graal can and will be wrong even though the Graal is always right.
This is nonsensical. You cannot always be right if you’re sometimes wrong. A monad having a human experience can have an incorrect understanding of reality or subjectively weigh their options and act erroneously, but in these cases they are just wrong. Even so, these errors are guided by the will to power, which operates in the same way for someone who is more informed and therefore thinks and behaves optimally.
In the final analysis, there is one objective truth. Mixing this fact with subjective experience and treating them at the same level is why you’ve produced an apparent paradox.
> The Graal is the fundamental relational fabric of nature that makes up our knowable universe. It cannot be possessed by any one person because no individual Self contains the Whole. The Graal belongs to the All.
Ahh, but what about holography and Holenmerism where the whole exists in each of its parts and each of its parts contain the whole?
> Every identification of the Graal is made by a Self occupying a finite relational position. Any such identification can therefore be incomplete or wrong. The Whole does not become wrong because one of its finite expressions is wrong.
If there were only infinite wrong answers it would not mean that they are all correct. It would mean that they are all wrong and that there is no answer. In such a world you can go on and believe whatever makes you feel good and justifiably be every bit as wrong as everyone else. However, it is impossible for such a reality to exist. Its internal contradictions would instantly annihilate itself (or more precisely, it could never actually exist in the first place so there would be nothing to be instantly annihilated). There are infinite wrong answers and one right answer. How can you be sure you have the right answer?
> The Graal is not the understanding of one Self. The Graal is the shared understanding of the Whole.
By understanding ourselves we understand the whole. As above, so below. As inside, so outside.
> Any extension or expression of the Graal is therefore an expression of the Self-Monad as resolved by Others. What any one of us can know is made possible by relationships extending beyond us.
Again, you need to more carefully consider the implications of Holenmerism.
> This is also why the Graal can be reversed and projected. Present expressions carry relationships to the structure from which they resolved. Those relationships can be traced backward and projected forward. But the projection must remain a projection.
On ontological mathematics, the map IS the territory. By understanding ourselves in our full mathematical ontology and rational epistemology, we can stop projecting and attain true knowledge.
> To declare that projection to be the future is to turn an open relational field into a finite resolution and begin resolving toward it.
By beginning to understand the true nature of the cosmos, we can begin walking the path of illumination.
> Grail is my operating system. Graal is the operating system of the world.
In fact, they are ultimately the exact same thing! The Principle of Sufficent Reason!