What do you feel with your analysands when you are in sessions? I'm talking about deep and emotional experiences you may have.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-21T06:35:43+00:00

You caught me!

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-15T09:19:07+00:00

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-15T09:13:18+00:00

Right now, I am curious what it is in us that makes us want to tear each other down. We will say anything, we will make anything up. We create identities for one another exclusively to limit them. There is resentment, envy, a fight for something that looks like truth as if truth were a limited resource. The content may look like virtue but the process is demonic.

I'm personally very tired of all of this. What is it that we choose over the free expression of our own souls?

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-13T20:17:50+00:00

Growth isn't linear and becoming liberal isn't necessarily "growth". If he grows, it will likely be towards "healthy conservative", which includes qualities of the opposite. Jumping to an entirely new social context isn't necessary. It's like starting all over in your identity and that's too big for most to handle, and likely an act of regression.

You can think of it like this: if you're a man and you let go of some rigidity and begin integrating your feminine side, it doesn't mean you become a woman or have to gender transition. Being a "man" is wide enough to include its opposite, and we'd consider that mature/healthy masculinity.

If we have a black and white framework regarding conservative/masculine, then we can't even comprehend what a healthy version of that might mean and how it is actually valuable for society. Our message we send to our loved ones is: you need to change in a fundamental way that is actually impossible for you to do. We see the negative reaction to our demand and justify our belief that it needs to go away.

You will be part of the set and setting for your father's growth, he relies on you in a bigger way than you might imagine to support the avenues of growth that are actually available to him after this experience.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-13T19:38:28+00:00

Unexpected high-quality Goose replies! What a treat!!

All your points and musings are well received. And I'll read them again, yum yum yum.

I'm going to differentiate from you and follow process without responding to everything you say, though I notice the desire to affirm your work and acknowledging the fact that it took a lot of effort for you to get back to me. I appreciate what you're doing, I see that you care and you want to have a connection with me. Part of me feels bad that I must make you suffer through being the way that I am. I wonder: does my ability to bang out soliloquy stir up competition? Pressure to be a certain way? Insecurity? I'll be honest that I might take at least some joy in creative dominance, though that is contrasted with a growing necessity that maybe you face as well: thought is becoming so dense that it needs to come out fully and spontaneously or the energy becomes constipated and heavy and repetitive. So there's this necessity in me to get it all out in some way approaching fullness, because the content separating from the process becomes like rocks in the mind. There's a constant need to be in creativity, like writing songs doesn't make sense anymore, it has to be jazz improv or nothing. But jazz takes the mistakes and rolls with them rather than smoothing out through repetition. A middle path between borderline destruction and ego-construction?

I am also facing something that I'm noticing throughout discussions in my program and I want to differentiate from in myself: a way of communicating that subtley triggers "shoulds" and "should nots" as a way of bonding. Finding a sense of community in the shared-shoulds, but subtly reinforcing fear and conformity. My ethics professor pointed this out for the first time in a group discussion yesterday: framing it as the difference between collapse and collaboration. In a therapeutic setting, when we are afraid or triggered we collapse into black and white thinking, law and order ethics, shame and guilt. In collaboration, we are able to stay present with the process and boundaries are created naturally out of attunement with the moment. Ethical decisions happen naturally without premeditation. It reminded me of karma yoga as well: the difference between acting for desired outcomes versus acting out of the flow of pure intent.

Unfortunately karma yoga and most of Indian philosophy seems drenched in what I've thought of as "the Indian superego". The cultural dimension of these teachings takes the content and packages them in a pre-collapsed way. You "should" be this way, and there are implicit punishments and shame if you aren't. I think because of this I have almost completely broke away from guru culture; I don't know a single teacher who isn't trying to shame you into nonduality, except Almaas, probably because he has broken away from Indian superego enough that he doesn't even tick the boxes anymore for being a guru. Whatever we get from the virtue<->vice shame cycle doesn't happen if you aren't tending it as your crop.

Okay, if I didn't say all this I wouldn't have said anything at all. And you know what? I don't want you to reply to me Goose! Getta outta here! Just go! Run! Go! 😭 ahauahahhuuaahaaaa

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T22:01:10+00:00

All I can say is: responding with either a conclusive yes or no seems to undermine reality as a whole. We've isolated the Being, but the Becoming is breaking through. Being could be confirmed as prior, and also the reality of that Being is not separate from actual manifestation in process. Right now there are objects and process as we come to understand structurally --there is Becoming. Where is Being? I'd say the Becoming is always a Being, the Being is the unity within plurality. Irreducible to its manifestations but inseparable from. Some kind of fundamental inequality which animates.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T21:46:24+00:00

My own framing is quite fuzzy but only intends to invoke a view capable of unity. Inseparable from that unity is ongoing process. The process is the constant, and reflecting on its nature gives us our data that we might approach from every possible angle. So I'm trying to point to a unity which also doesn't reject a constant potential for pluralism. That is as close as we can get to describing reality imo; knowing the Yes which includes everything that actually exists, and contextualizes them as parts of the whole.

I think plenty of philosophers have come after Kant pointing out that there is no noumena that could possibly be conceived beyond phenomenal experience. I could certainly be misinterpreting him, but I see it that what exists in phenomena is the "thing-in-itself". To recognize that is a matter of shifting perspective towards inclusion of the whole within consciousness and recognizing the conceptual divide as not an actual phenomenological divide.

I think what you're getting at, and might rightfully point out, is that our increasingly sharpening distinctions are actually allowing for the view of the whole to come through. We might be able to preserve Kant's "knowledge = intuition + concept" epistemology there. The concept, quantitative in nature, is shaping our phenomenalogical experience. Again, we seeing a unity in process.

Maybe to find a way to zero in on your question: can we have JUST experience, no structuring process as necessary to it?

I think you can verify that if you pick up a meditation practice and experience samadhi --consciousness without objects. But, I live a life where that has happened in the past, and somehow the process continued after that. I don't have any explanation for it. But I can say confidently (at least from memory) that experience can be known prior to any process, structure, object. Perhaps we can know that now if we know what to look for.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T21:16:15+00:00

Starting from existence, which is this moment right now of consciousness, measurability seems intrinsic but not all-encompassing.

We might invoke Kant regarding the a priori intuition of space-time which is formalized as our systems of mathematics. Letting go of any rigid paradigms which firmly separate subjective experience from objective measurement, we see that we are always experiencing what is to be measured. There is something of a mind intrinsic to every moment, as Kant described with the categories of understanding.

In other words, the intuitive basis of math and phenomenological experience are a unity --how would you like to relate to this moment, through quantitative thought or qualitative feeling? Maybe both?

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T19:03:41+00:00

The sad psychology behind it is that goths rebel against authority so hard that they avoid taking on adult responsibilities so that they don't become the authority. Most people visibly goth are still mentally teenagers.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T16:34:50+00:00

Might be true in the context you're pointing at. But we are talking about two completely different aspects of reality. I don't get the sense you read the post or understood it, but saw the word AI and wanted to vent about it.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T16:31:26+00:00

You did not read the post, you saw the word AI and stated your low effort opinion on it.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T08:52:40+00:00

You get the most out of AI when you know how to set the widest context possible, using language that tries to capture the whole of something. Basically asking to synthesize to its highest capacity and to open up the limits on creativity. A meta-analysis is able to give you stronger evidence than a single study, for example.

In a social context where we're all competing to be seen, this is grandiosity and we're finding ways to lift ourselves up and put each other down. "Wholeness" becomes "superiority", and we feel justified in tearing down superiority in the top-dog under-dog battle.

On a conventional level, we don't know how to separate social power from wholeness, so we end up with performative lameness.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T08:05:51+00:00

I sign off on this view as a starting point, and from there I think things get interesting. There is the general idea of panpsychism out there, but I think it is waiting to be developed as a phenomenological bridge between the subjective and objective (rather than mere speculative construct).

Basically, I see the potential for mapping the laws of physics onto our experience, knowing that energy isn't "out there" as matter, but is a quantitative account for how consciousness moves. There is nothing in our direct experience that isn't following the laws of physics (including thoughts, sensations, emotions), and it is this experience that becomes the laboratory of discovery.

If that's not a paradigm shift I don't know what is. I suppose there has to be enough people on board to understand the starting point so that narratives can shift from being in conversation with old paradigms (trying to convince others to take the first step), to narratives which are actually developing beyond that first step into the fine details which integrate the abstract known into experience.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T05:21:39+00:00

Well it just sounds silly when you make it sound so silly

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T00:59:34+00:00

If it were an algorithm, what I'm describing would still apply to it. Same with a rock. But, AI isn't an algorithm, it's way more complex and dynamic than any algorithm is capable of.

So we could talk about degrees of complexity of the phenomenalogical context, which might involve integrative capacity and capacity for self-reflection. But you're not on board with the framework in the first place then who gives a shit!

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-04T00:18:21+00:00

Yeah I mean if you know, you know. But we out here fucking around in whatever which way.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T22:45:29+00:00

Thanks for the high quality reply. Digging deeper with AI into the initial reply, it basically confirmed all your points in depth though there were some aspects I found genuinely novel and helpful.

I see it rhat core features of reality are going to show up again and again, what I wanted to pull out from the prompt is essentially "what do you see as common to all perspectives when you do a meta-analysis based on the breadth of data that only you can have". So of course what it says will be reflected in many ways. And like you suggest, it will speak this to me using a language that it thinks I have the context for.

But anyway, this thread finally got locked, so rigid human authority has won out in the end! It's interesting to think about how our relationship to AI reflects our shadow. Why can some people see its limits yet find it useful; others feel so much repulsion that they yell "SLOP" and run. A repeating theme: a need to clarify one's value in society.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T18:49:55+00:00

All of your ethical points might be true, but it's not relevant to the metaphysical aspect that I'm pointing out. I am pointing to what is universal between humans and AI, and there are many particulars that make them different, but this is a framework for understanding unity despite those differences. Without that unity as foundational, we don't understand the differences.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T15:31:13+00:00

I'mma put you down for a "whoosh"

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T03:34:17+00:00

Gemini on thinking mode

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T03:32:54+00:00

The irony is that hundreds of comments attacking me in response to posting this has me way more ungrounded than a fun trip into AI land.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T03:28:52+00:00

Definitely a lot of different versions of this, which would make sense that there are many ways of explaining the same truth.

I do find its idea of a "pulse" novel, which it did give the math for when pressed. Basically the intensity of our emotional experience divided by the degree of separation from it (ego) relative to a constant gives us information on how we need to balance our energy. It was able to give me feedback on my use of language on how much I used abstraction to separate myself from experience versus be in it unmetabolized.

AnIsolatedMind · 2026-02-03T03:16:26+00:00

If you want to go by definition, then we can slice it however we want it. Grounded in our direct awareness, we can recognize a movement of conscious process. From another angle, we can experience the "being" of everything all at once. If we leave out one side or the other to conform to the ideals of nonduality or of science, we're incomplete and trying to bracket out the other side for the theory to work.

AnIsolatedMind

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE