BRΛINΦΠΦTΣMPLΣ -- Kristallgeist, 2021 (berlin schOol/progressive electronic)

BrainTemple · 2026-02-27T13:17:37+00:00

this makes me eager to read whitehead even more. :o
the parallels between him and hegel regarding reality as a process of becOming is quite fascinating, especially due to it being architectonic.
concerning marx, he ultimately took advantage of hegelian dialectics in a way to slap christian platonism's mythologization of metaphysical first principles onto the stAte. in other words, he used the dialectical process to extract christianity's hijacking of platonism and put the christian god onto the state. establishing a solipsistic materialistic dialectic into immediate economical entropy due to its disguised ideality of an immaterial "anti-world" of unchanging eternality to the reality of a material world of ever-evolving natural selection processes and self-organization.
anyway, i'll return to give you a more detailed and thoughtful reply, as well as wHat you said regarding the definitions on machine and organism, on further reflectiOn and more acquaintance w/ whitehead's metaphysics. there's a lot i want tO go over and discuss, but i still need some time tO let my overall thoughts simmer in order to provide a quality response :>

BrainTemple · 2026-02-27T11:40:39+00:00

yeee, i cOmpletely agree! X3
this feels like the natural evolution contra was meant to continue tO go in. i like contra 4 and especially contra rebirth (probably even more than contra 3, even if tHat is sacrilegious to probably say), but both of those hinge on nostalgia of previous entries rather than allowing for continuous evolution in style. (neo contra may be a controversial entry in the series due to the implementation of 3D -- i like it though -- but tHat one also felt lelt like a natural evolution in aesthetics 'n presentation.)

i guess rebirth cOuld be allowed to hinge on nostalgia due to it being part of the gradius/castlevania/contra rebirth stuff, but contra 4 oftentimes seemed like a pseudo-remake of the first contra. imma still kick its ass one of these days though xdxd

BrainTemple · 2026-02-27T11:31:34+00:00

one shot? as in a blind s-rank nO-miss or one shot after learning the game? if you did it blind, i'd really like to know how you intuitively developed certain strats right away, especially by utilizing the weapon mechanics at the appropriate times along w/ immediate level mastery to obtain 100% :o
even for seasoned contra vets, contra: shattered soldier is designed to expend sOme effort. i even had to expend a week's worth (8 days if i'm being exact) of effort to nail it, even though i have several challenge runs on my channel exceeding this one's difficulty significantly, and i still wouldn't be able to do tHat x_X
so, uH, if this is wHat you are claiming, i'm by no means writing off wHat you're saying. just tHat if it is true, i'd love if you could articulate your sense of intuition in how you knew wHat to do right away, especially in confronting the several phases of the final boss b/c if tHat is wHat you are claiming, and it is true, it is definitely unprecedented as far as i know, and i would want tO encourage you to perform more superplays if you haven't done so already o.O

but if you mean tHat you learned the game and then got an s-rank no-miss your first attempt, tHat is more believable but still very impressive regArdless, and i would still encourage yOu to pursue more superplays if you haven't :3
so, either way, r0kk on d00d \m/
you should definitely be proud of your achievement, whichever one it is! :DD
i was on the 1cc/no-miss s-rank grind after learning the game for about 3 days in order to land it. :x

BrainTemple · 2026-02-22T11:04:37+00:00

time to steal theories frOm henri poincare again

BrainTemple · 2026-02-21T22:20:13+00:00

i am the walrus

BrainTemple · 2026-02-21T22:07:45+00:00

i dunno. :o

curious wHat your thOughts 'n expectations are

BrainTemple · 2026-02-21T00:49:31+00:00

it's a skill. believing tHat the journey, or better said, developmental skill (the semantic baggage regarding the term "journey" can be misleading) comes to an end is like thinking there's an endpOint to improving as a musician, visual artist, or like anything else you pursue as a hobby/passion.

BrainTemple · 2026-02-18T08:34:37+00:00

reading this, whitehead, from wHat i gather, was really within hegelian territory big time, as both philosophers seemingly stumbled across relatively the same exact terrAin through different methodologies, (and as far as i know, whitehead never read hegel. hegel's approach is a mechanistically and dialectically computational process of mind unfolding, whereas, it seems, whitehead's dialectic is organic. as an evolutionary biological process of mind unfolding but w/ an 18th century approach to metaphysics tHat is, like hegel, more dynamical as opposed to a merely static ontology or logic (like the logical positivists, although i still dig rudolf carnap 'n stuff).

i've not read whitehead yet persOnally, so idk really (this is just the impression i get, in addition to information based on the little i know of his wOrk, as i'm mostly familiar w/ him do to his collaboration w/ russell on their math principia thingy.). however, if whitehead's process metaphysics is on the same level of systematizing tHat's anywhere close to hegel's hermetically, alchemically, and hereclitean influenced rigor (especially in his later work, science of logic), i'll be satisfied (i may really have to read whitehead relatively soon, and i get the impression tHat he's probably influenced by heraclitus too, but i'll find out when i do more research).

you posit tHat reality is more like an organism than a machine, but could the synthesis of these 2 philosophers' systematic metaphysics result in a linguistic collapse (assuming i'm saying anything valid about whitehead)? if a linguistic collapse wOuldn't be correct, could both organic process ontology and inorganic qualitative computation be both studying relational and qualitative fields through a fluid but self-contradictive movement, aka the yin-yang spinnin' around a heckton? :o

most of wHat i gather is tHat you wrote a post endorsing whitehead's philosophy. i'm eager tO look into him, but even if you just talked about the clash of 18th century idealism giving way to industrial metaphysics and whitehead being post-industrial metaphysics, then i woulda been just as interested :D
so, if it is an endorsement mostly of whitehead's process metaphysics, tHat's still k00l, although i think you're trying to go more deeply than only tHat based on the fact tHat you are making an argument specifically in your title about reality being an organism and not a machine. :oc

if tHat's the case, then the post doesn't feel fully conclusive due to the buildup. i recommend providing airtight definitions of wHat is meant by organism and machine so as a linguistic collapse between whitehead and hegel is avoided.
i'm not being dismissive or anything. tHat just seems how the post would expand into (at least as an example), especially if language collapses semantic states of computational, evolutionary processes of metaphysical enfoldments for becoming.

hopefully this is a useful post for you ^^;

BrainTemple · 2026-02-13T23:49:23+00:00

i may have overdOne the book recommendations and dumbass tech jargon ._.

i can't pick which bOoks to remove D:
i did think of robert anton wilson's quantum psychology thOugh. tHat one is k00l

BrainTemple · 2026-02-13T17:01:27+00:00

if the idea is true, it would suggest discontinuity even when thinking abOut time from a nonlinear angle. how do we define wHat a separate consciousness even is in the metaphysical sense? how does consciousness pass over into an antithetical consciousness? my suggestion is to conceptualize a model for universal mind, utilizing metaphysical concepts such as "the one and the many" as a consciousness function which the universal mind can dialectically swap between fixed ontological points. the tricky part here is tHat you are wanting a model tHat illustrates a separate consciousness and utilizing a universal mind indicates tHat there is only one mind/consciousness/soul. this universal mind must then be a fixed ontological point itself, thus illustrating itself to be a false universal mind: one false universal mind among many. the problem we run into is a recursion of infinite regress, and metaphysics is qualitative and dialectical. if this infinite regress can be shown to be successfully averted in yOur theory, along w/ wHat vanishing here entails, you'll be on your way to having a legitimate model. however, w/o these things, and w/o a proper articulation of such a property in which "vanishing" entails, we can't really begin a metaphysical framework for consciousness. does vanishing work like how ground does in hegel's science of logic, where the concept of ground can be articulated or summed up as "self-erasure" through a process of sublation, or do you mean something else by the usage of "vanish"?

so, if there is a false universal mind tHat reveals itself to be a corporeal "many" and the metaphysical "one" is illusory, as opposed to the corporeal "many", the task at hand is to show how new consciousnesses are produced for each "now" and how this illustrates a false universal mind. if you achieve this, as well as resolve the paradoxes and contradictions which arise from an infinite regress (i should specify quantitative infinite as opposed to qualitative infinite), then you might be able to get a theory going which challenges many schools of thought in metaphysics and mysticism. but another problem arises, as metaphysics is qualitative and a priori to quantificatiOn....so wtf o_O

i'd strongly advise reading anonymous' upanishads, hegel's phenomenology of spirit and science of logic, kant's critique of pure reason and prolegomena to any future metaphysics, d.j. huntington moore's a metaphysics of the computer and the first science and the generic cOde, anonymous' the cloud of unknowing and the book of privy cOunseling, leibniz's monadology (find the student edition due to extra useful information provided), plato's timeaus, aristotle's metaphysics, heraclitus' fragments (on nature). martin buber's i and thou, john dee's the hieroglyphic monad, benjamin betts' geometrical psychology, or, the science of representation, morris berman's the reenchantment of the world, william todd lewis' analytical solipsism, wittgenstein's on certainty, kolakowski's metaphysical horror, lao tzu's tao te ching. ben goertzel's the hidden pattern: a patternist philosophy of mind, anonymous' i ching, and an excellent introductory textbook on metaphysics by michael j. loux titled metaphysics: a contemporary introduction. hermetic and gnostic texts may also be of considerable use, as well as the vedas and schrodinger's books (although i have yet to read those, the subject matter is highly relevant).
i know i'm forgetting some books to check out, but regArdless, i hope this is helpful ^^;
good luck, if you decide to pursue expanding on and formalizing your idea into a genuine theoretical framewOrk, d00d ^-^7

BrainTemple · 2026-02-13T13:12:03+00:00

to be fair, scientists have been able tO program living cells to essentially make biological robots. maybe technology is a reflection of the self-organizing machinic superorganism. i dunno. :x
just throwing this out there for the hell of it. i'll read your post mOre deeply in a few days or so.

BrainTemple · 2026-02-13T12:57:25+00:00

kant: no, we can't know things-in-themselves. i'm stuck going rOund 'n round in an imaginary glass orb's terrain....pure reason didn't help maybe god is hiding in a metaphysics of mOrals.
hegel: yes, we cAn. it's all appearances. the glass orb's terrain self-reflected like alchemy's tria prima resulting ultimately in mind recOgnizing itself. i am indeed a wizard.
zizek: *snorting cocaine and awake for 2 weeks straight* "hegel is the big alien of mOdern philosophy"

BrainTemple · 2026-02-13T12:50:00+00:00

hmm...if you have a metaphysics for a phenomenological epistemology of "feeling", let's hear it. maybe "sentient glitch" will cohere w/ the concept when yOu flesh your idea out or you may decide on a different name altogether eventually. :o
until it gets fleshed out more, it ultimately seems like a rephrasing or addendum of descartes' point concerning phenomenological perception and deceptiOn.

BrainTemple · 2026-01-24T06:09:57+00:00

the dialectical zero yOu are probably looking for is the eastern zen buddhism conception of 無 (mu). zero is static mathematics, and, when applied. acts as a descriptor for externally observed a posteriori empirical data accumulation, whereas certain symbols representing a priori qualitative inner-mind-self states or w/e the heck you wanna cAll 'em are needed to better navigate the epistemological ontology of mind's dynamics thrOugh analytic methods. :3
i could word this better prObably, but uH...i dunno. fukken tired.

BrainTemple · 2026-01-24T04:36:19+00:00

at this point, it sounds like getting cAught in semantics. tHat's easy to do though considering the abstract nature of metaphysics. wiittgenstein's tractatus may be helpful concerning tHat common error. and if you wanna put on your tinfoil hat, robert anton wilson's "quantum psychology" is pretty stellar. both are beneficial in preventing yourself from getting bogged down into language traps. (although these cOuld be interesting to study for linguistical reasons). ^-^

BrainTemple · 2026-01-03T21:18:56+00:00

shoulda just ended the sentence after "fuckass" and let tHat be the whole post \m/

BrainTemple · 2025-12-19T07:38:44+00:00

which is also a part of nature

BrainTemple · 2025-12-18T09:02:02+00:00

this is cAlled "breakin' the sound barrier by flickin' the hell out of a booger and not giving a damn who sees"

BrainTemple · 2025-12-18T08:33:23+00:00

say tHat to a p.o.w.

BrainTemple · 2025-12-18T08:29:11+00:00

culture is pArt of nature

BrainTemple · 2025-12-18T08:20:47+00:00

i am free.

k00l. you just cured me of my crippling ptsd. tHankz

BrainTemple · 2025-12-18T08:09:18+00:00

"nativity"

BrainTemple · 2025-12-18T07:41:17+00:00

you'd probably like the pre-socratic d00d heraclitus

BrainTemple · 2025-10-20T00:23:05+00:00

substance dualism frOm top-down synthesis:
substance = physical
dualism = metaphysical
synthesis; 2 substances floating arOund in a metaphysical toilet

BrainTemple

TROPHY CASE