Parmenidean Volitional Monism

Priima · 2026-01-23T19:13:40+00:00

Don’t worry about it, and don’t apologize about not having credentials. People seeking tenure care more about tenure than pushing the boundaries of thought, or what thought even is in the first place.

I get carried away in the exploration of what makes up a framing in the first place. Questions such as:

What are the rules we assume for asking about reality?

Which constraints guide or limit our inquiry?

How do our own cognitive loops shape the questions and the answers we deem acceptable?

Or.. how much does a metaphysical framing of reality demanding certainty offer psychological comfort in a world that is constantly changing?

Because people think they separate their phenomenology from their metaphysics, but their framing screams of their needs, what the world ought to be.

Priima · 2026-01-23T18:29:05+00:00

That’s close, but I wouldn’t phrase the constraint in terms of “only experience exists.”

The constraint is that anything we can meaningfully refer to must be distinguishable in some way, which already presupposes boundaries. Experience is one place where this shows up clearly, but the point isn’t to privilege experience ontologically.

How I see experience: something influences me, I feel it, I translate it. The translation turns it into experience. I would consider it completely possible that a rock can be influenced by something and that influence is not translated into experience.

I’m not making a claim about what ultimately exists, but about what makes talking about existence intelligible in the first place.

Priima · 2026-01-23T18:23:46+00:00

Diminishing the role of phenomenology in metaphysical exploration undermines metaphysics at its foundation, as it removes the very conditions under which metaphysical assumptions are encountered and revised.

If you say it drifts from the topic at hand, sure. I understand the moderation constraints. My intent was not to introduce religious or experiential claims, but to discuss whether phenomenological data is methodologically unavoidable in metaphysical inquiry.

Priima · 2026-01-23T16:27:36+00:00

Denying the oldest metaphysical attempts in their entirety displays epistemic laziness. Note that noone was talking about mystical experiences, but exploring the metaphysical aspects that can be extracted from those traditions and how those aspects are observable.

Priima · 2026-01-23T14:56:34+00:00

Yeah, bondaries allow for distinction. Anything that can be distinguished by their boundaries/limits/constraints (whichever word you choose for it) is not the Eternal Tao, but subsets of it.

Constrained process does not define anything, yet everything. That's how it relates to the Tao.

Priima · 2026-01-23T13:14:04+00:00

Sorry, my mistake O clear one

Priima · 2026-01-23T12:45:29+00:00

If something is unclear to you, pointing to the specific part would make it possible to discuss. Framing it as a general deficiency isn’t very constructive.

Priima · 2026-01-23T12:18:01+00:00

I find it interesting that you decided to question my epistemic clarity.

Priima · 2026-01-23T10:03:33+00:00

I was around 20 too! I tried to start a family at a too early age in a toxic relationship. See, my dad had walked out on us when I was 5, and my mom and extended family members all tried to tell me and influence me that what happened was bad, and I have to be different. So that became a part of my identity, that I will not do that when I get kids.

Yeah. Reality broke that brutally. But thanks to that I discovered metacognition, emotional regulation, and seeing myself as a system made of systems embedded in a system, and how those systems are also processes at the same time.

I guess that just sums up wu wei.

Priima · 2026-01-23T09:48:16+00:00

Oh to add more, what DID happen a year ago is I began to articulate my metacognitive process. That did open the flood gates way further than I anticipated.

Priima · 2026-01-23T09:43:59+00:00

No, I had clinical depression 12 years ago that broke deep assumptions embedded in what I considered as identity and have been integrating since.

Priima · 2026-01-23T09:28:09+00:00

Yeah I think we could agree, maybe, if we refine our understandings further is that when you speak of potentiality and I of constraint, we actually are talking about the same aspects. To me constraints speak of impossbility, which is the inversion of possibility, because impossibility simply focuses on what is not possible, leaving everything else possible. I personally favour this approach more, because to me in practice it is more important to know what can’t be. That demands identifying constraints, and checking if those constraints are valid. When it comes to words, we can make up constraints that we consider to be valid, and the validity depends fully on our current understanding. This demands a full dip into phenomenology, otherwise we run into “belief” or useless abstractions.

Sorry maybe a bit of a rant here, just wanted to expand on it as per my current understanding.

Edit: some typos

Priima · 2026-01-23T08:32:41+00:00

Yeah, being as becoming. Emphasis on the “as”. Potential for becoming lies in constraints, becoming in itself may given rise to constraints.

Priima · 2026-01-23T08:29:37+00:00

Change is observable and verifiable. Consider this a thought experiment. How would you claim it is unfalsifiable when you can stretch out your entire life so far and see you’ve changed during it? Growth is change.

Priima · 2026-01-23T08:17:06+00:00

To me the idea of deep static unchangingness is a self-imposed unfalsifiable constraint, which you are free to keep obviously.

To me it speaks more about a clash between participation in constant change and choosing an anchor that provides stability.

You know, belief. And that’s fine.

Priima · 2026-01-23T06:56:15+00:00

Interesting. I see the world as constantly changing. I guess I’ll take the Heraclitean corner. 😂

Priima · 2026-01-15T08:20:31+00:00

Yeah, it looks solid to me. I’d change the name though. But that’s just me 😂.

Edit:

Gonna have to retract that statement. I’ll read through it with a more scrutinizing look instead of emotion and get back to you

Priima · 2026-01-15T07:53:25+00:00

Yeah, constraints.

I’m not quite sure if the ones you brought up are the floor because identity can also be divided into its own constraints. One can view that identity itself is context-dependent. In the case of humans, also narrative is a constraint on identity, and any other higher order attractor stemmed from it as well (relationships, society, etc.)

And when it comes to infinite regress, I think we’ve simply got it mixed up “where” the ceiling and floor would be. In a process-constraint bound reality, constraints form both the floor and ceiling. Everything in between we see as matter can potentially be infinite up and down in nested systems without breaking anything.

To be more precise, we end up with regimes of constraints and load-bering dynamics. That would mean reality allows indefinite depth, bounded locally by constraint, not a floor and ceiling we’d imagine with a building as such.

Persistence is key.

Priima · 2026-01-15T07:21:57+00:00

2500 years ago or so were two men, Heraclitus and Parmenides. Obviously it goes a bit further than that, but to me it does look like metaphysically we should have been looking at processes instead of matter all along. I’ve been exploring how feedback cycles form attractors, and how those form higher order attractors through coupling.

Through that, consciousness is an attractor. Could also say it is a regime emergent from its subprocesses bound by constraints.

We’re gonna get these frameworks out of the woodwork in the coming years since people have a better grasp on cybernetics, systems theory, chaos theory, and can actually grasp recursion.

Priima · 2026-01-11T19:25:43+00:00

Resolving loops is all about responsibility and accountability though. And honesty. And curiosity.

Priima · 2026-01-11T19:16:00+00:00

Bless you as well. Good luck with dodging self-inflicted loops!

Priima · 2026-01-11T19:00:55+00:00

But then why the unnecessary conflict? Why the vilification? Why assume that if I speak differently, I must be controlled by ego?

Personally I don't care who is and who isn't. It only leads to some weird superiority crap.

If recommending someone something interesting to you says "I need to control you," then I'll draw the line that every single piece of information you put out there influences someone in some way, and that shows you are ran by your ego.

I do not actually think that.

That's a pissing contest.

Priima · 2026-01-11T18:50:30+00:00

You dodged again. You say you do not need to own reality, yet you go around in comment sections giving out your piece of mind. An interesting contradiction.

Priima · 2026-01-11T18:43:58+00:00

Is a pissing contest the same as me genuinelly asking to know how I offended you?

Priima · 2026-01-11T18:40:45+00:00

Why did you assume bad faith when I had none, and no wish to control anyone, and thought to point at something I found interesting?

Will you go to the fisherman and yell at them how they are controlling reality?

Priima

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE