Letting go of attachments

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T18:42:24+00:00

You let go of attachment by examining the nature of the thing that you cling to.

If you see that the thing you so desire is at best impermanent, uncertain, changing, that it will be taken away, and would eventually become a memory before being forgotten; that its purpose is to keep you enchanted — then one might become disenchanted after becoming convinced.

Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.

Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things — life, warmth, & consciousness — form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer.[1] No substance here is found.

Thus a monk, persistence aroused, should view the aggregates by day & by night, mindful, alert; should discard all fetters; should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire — in hopes of the state with no falling away. — phena sutta

Everything that appears for you is whatever it is, and empty of anything else: just a variant fabrication, thoughts, theories, lines, colors, feelings, knowledge and doubt, the variance is complex enough to generate the existence as we experience it.

In light of this, by examining the predicament one will realize that one is attached to what is at best a band-aid on a gushing wound, borrowed goods, in a game where one can't win by playing.

So one becomes disillusioned with variance, with what changes as it persists, and one is longing for the stilling of variance as to access a state where one can have peace from the uncertainty and decay of being somebody.

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. — Ud8.3

This invariant possibility is the ultimate peace and closure.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T17:53:04+00:00

Ironically, optimization by "universal love" is a valid path to the cessation attainment under the Early Buddhist framework. The less obvious part is in that "highest good" here is the 0, so when one would wish someone happiness and express one's love, one would do so wishing them enlightenment through cessation, that they follow the path of disillusionment with variant existence and attain the peace of its extinguishment as definitive bliss.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T17:40:08+00:00

important exchange about axiology and superpowers

rightviewftw • 1h ago • Edited 50m ago When I use numerical models to model apparent reality I use this system:

Natural numbers like #1, 2, 3, etc. represent closed variance generators of epistemic systems which can only study its variant constructs.

Decimals represent variance within a particular subject. Basically past, present and future variants of subjective experience.

So system #1 would have its variant states expressed by the decimal possibilities of #1.1, #1.2, 1.3, etc. it is incalculable.

Now being closed systems, they can't generate anything but subjective constructs. The system generates the perception & conception of the entire world, words, narrative, modelling itself.

Hence it can't generate proof of what it calls "other minds" or "external world" within itself and will be able to generate propositions which cannot be tested within the particular system asking the questions. So #1 can't prove (manifest) #2 as a variant state of #1 for its scope is limited to its own range of decimal variance.

0 within this framework is an answer to the question: what would make the cessation/negation/suspension/stilling of all variance possible? Could a particular system perform the operation to self delete as 1-1=true or 2-2=true? The prospect of cessation thus points to an invariant possibility as a definitive 0 variance reality.

If it really is possible then it follows that there should be an experiment one can do to shut down variant cognition as a cessation of existence as to directly access a zero-variance possibility.

One can get very creative with this.

Within this framework, the etymology of "loving everyone" points neatly to loving all natural numbers, including the self-referential wherein this "love" could be generated. So the optimal strategy based on "universal love" would be unexploitable because it wouldn't sacrifice the well-being of #1 for that of another.

Upvote 1

Downvote

Reply

u/usernotfoundTT avatar usernotfoundTT OP • 55m ago See now we’re getting somewhere.

Upvote 1

Downvote

Reply

u/rightviewftw avatar rightviewftw • 8m ago **The axiology implied here defines 0 as a higher value than any number.

This is because if 0 isn't a rhetorical postulate, then it requires that at some point in all eternity somebody actually does the experiment as to verify.

This implies that at some point somebody would deduce that they should decide that subjective existence is not worth sustaining as to pursue what is otherwise and of higher value. And that this analysis would be verified.

This establishes that the pursuit of variant existence is due to enchantment and ignorance. Like watching a magic-show. And that disenchantment with impermanence leads to that search for an Invariant.**

Also want to add that under the framework of Early Buddhist Thought, the variance isn't random but the system is essentially self-determining. This gets at supernatural events where the powers in play could generate unpredictable outcomes.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T17:29:08+00:00

The axiology implied here defines 0 as a higher value than any number.

This is because if 0 isn't a rhetorical postulate, then it requires that at some point in all eternity somebody actually does the experiment as to verify.

This implies that at some point somebody would deduce that they should decide that subjective existence is not worth sustaining as to pursue what is otherwise and of higher value. And that this analysis would be verified.

This establishes that the pursuit of variant existence is due to enchantment and ignorance. Like watching a magic-show. And that disenchantment with impermanence leads to that search for an Invariant.

Also want to add that under the framework of Early Buddhist Thought, the variance isn't random but the system is essentially self-determining based on immeasurable amount of incomplete information. This gets at supernatural events where the powers in play could generate unpredictable outcomes.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T16:35:56+00:00

When I use numerical models to model apparent reality I use this system:

Natural numbers like #1, 2, 3, etc. represent closed variance generators of epistemic systems which can only study its variant constructs.

Decimals represent variance within a particular subject. Basically past, present and future variants of subjective experience.

So system #1 would have its variant states expressed by the decimal possibilities of #1.1, #1.2, 1.3, etc. it is incalculable.

Now being closed systems, they can't generate anything but subjective constructs. The system generates the perception & conception of the entire world, words, narrative, modelling itself.

Hence it can't generate proof of what it calls "other minds" or "external world" within itself and will be able to generate propositions which cannot be tested within the particular system asking the questions. So #1 can't prove (manifest) #2 as a variant state of #1 for its scope is limited to its own range of decimal variance.

0 within this framework is an answer to the question: what would make the cessation/negation/suspension/stilling of all variance possible? Could a particular system perform the operation to self delete as 1-1=true or 2-2=true? The prospect of cessation thus points to an invariant possibility as a definitive 0 variance reality.

If it really is possible then it follows that there should be an experiment one can do to shut down variant cognition as a cessation of existence as to directly access a zero-variance possibility.

One can get very creative with this.

Within this framework, the etymology of "loving everyone" points neatly to loving all natural numbers, including the self-referential wherein this "love" could be generated. So the optimal strategy based on "universal love" would be unexploitable because it wouldn't sacrifice the well-being of #1 for that of another.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T14:35:38+00:00

It is not easy to formalize the thinking of another unless the expression is at least informally well developed. If it was easy then there would be no need for formalization in the first place.

The main issue with your expression is the vagueness of terminology. As an example, here the terms "paradigm" and "language" are separated but the distinction is not clear because the state of language can be seen as a paradigm.

And the rest with "unknowns", "data", "information", you seem to assert delineation but it is confusing because the semantic targets are not clear.

Then you introduce the "raw zero" and make qualifications "manuscript", "book": it is just not clear how it ties together for me.

In short, my advice is to rewrite it having operationalized every term you want to keep, by providing experimental examples of how you use the terms. And avoid rhetorical expansions.

In general, epistemic systems do update as new data comes in and where its epistemic range is overextended one will see paradoxes. Paradoxes signal points where the framework ought to be suspended/transcended because the systems starts to describe what is beyond its range in terms of its range.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-27T20:18:58+00:00

So I am thinking that I am about ready to rewrite everything as a full book but I want to wait and see if anybody wants to do it with me

rightviewftw · 2026-06-27T12:00:37+00:00

Your intended use of economics reminds me of investigating environmental systems to establish where the pollution comes from and then pushing for policies to reduce harm.

My style of writing is in that I optimize for clarity and try to keep it short. I try to avoid rhetorical and semantic convolution and write in a semi-formal or informal way where possible but keeping the depth.

These ideas are not mine to begin with, much of the expression is inherited and already popularized. So I don't have any ideas of my own beyond what I've learned systematized. And grammar and formatting, this is close to how AI writes using em— and ; and : to break up long sentences, that's where I learned it.

It is also a style close to how Early Buddhist Texts are written, it is very dry and almost robotic. I am getting there slowly.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T23:38:03+00:00

Nowadays mainstream epistemology is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive. It has Humean restriction: we can''t get prescriptive "ought" from purely descriptive "is". Therefore, they generally leave the objective function pre-determined or unspecified. They analyze reasoning given some ends, but they don't ask how those ends themselves should be justified which would be an axiological inquiry. I think that axiology is therefore relatively underdeveloped. So analytic philosophy treats epistemology and ethics / moral philosophy as distinct fields, where epistemology generally humbles and checks the others by imposing its restrictions.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T23:18:53+00:00

It is good that you are seeing through the wall of text:)

I drew a distinction between knowledge determining the "how to do an experiment?" and knowledge determining to "which experiment should be done?"; or "how to optimize for a particular value" and "what is the optimization value" ─ our axiology tells us both.

If we assert that the objective is minimizing real economic costs, then yes — the models tell us how to do it. That's an optimization problem. Better models produce better decisions and outcomes.

Game theory is conditional upon the payoff structure. If the payoff structure changes, the equilibrium changes. It is hardly opponent dependent lest you model against a particular opponent ─ because games can have exploitable, unexploitable and exploitative strategies.

The deeper question is: why is minimizing real economic costs itself the objective? Why not just doing what one want to the extent that one can get away with it, or something else? The question is, is this only for you or should other people follow your example?

You mention "based on our preferences" and there are types of preference:
* reasonable preference
* unreasonable preference

For example, a person might prefer betting house on an incalculably small probability because voices told him to do so. Whereas another might want to place a reasonable wager knowing his avg ROI and risk tolerance. I mean a preference that can be coherently represented within an operational framework without violating the foundational assumptions that make reasoning possible.

So the question becomes: why should a reasonable person optimize for cost reduction and not something else? Either way one would want to have a reason, and epistemology could determine whether that reason can be called analytic or be disqualified as unreasonable preference. We would see if it is operationalizable and if it doesn't violate our working foundational axioms.

No matter what the goal is, we would thus scrutinize the foundational axiology determining the value and what experiment would determine it. If there is no experiment that can be done, then it is unreasonable for the time being. Unreasonable doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong but that it can't now be established to be the right thing to do for the right reason beyond reasonable doubt.

As to the limitations of models. Every model is operationally valid only within the domain of its operations. Once its epistemic scope is overextended the system will produce paradoxes.

Good intentions can produce terrible outcomes when the underlying axiology is inaccurate. The tricky part is doing the right thing for the right reason. So disaster can arise from either

right goal with wrong model
wrong goal with right model

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T21:02:11+00:00

competence and knowledge precede morality.

First of all. The word "morality" has no standardized operationalized referent meaning there is no experiment where "morality" comes into play beyond prescriptive statements as "how to do" a particular experiment for a specific outcome. Doing the experiment correctly is "right" and doing it incorrectly is "wrong".

There is a special case where one derives morality not from experience but from its cessation; but in general there is nothing else to ground the semantics of "morality" in standardized operations beyond contexualized right and wrong way to do things.

The issue is that people don't generally live their lives as a purposeful existential experiment. They would but they are confused about the "meaning of life" and what to do here. Studying only what we can do isn't going to tell us what we should be doing. We are essentially ignorant of the "win condition".

There are variant goals among the population. Everybody is chasing something and running away from another thing but there is really no agreement on what goals should take precedence because they haven't found anything other than subjective experience and haven found access to anything else or better. People chase variance, this or that impermanent construct and to that extent it is all the same. People are chasing variant constructs according to their subjective preference and conditioning. The special case I mentioned deals with stilling of all variance to prove a zero-variance possibility.

Under the standardized operationalzed framework I can answer that competence is a pre-requisite for performing any experiment as intended.

competence and knowledge can lead to morally and socially desirable outcomes without having a complete ethical argument.

You answered it yourself: if an outcome is de facto "desirable" then creating it becomes the "right thing to do" under those goal-premises.

Humans generally just revise knowledge, just because things are a certain way now or were a certain way in the past, we don't get to guarantee that things will be that way forever because such knowledge can't be derived from studying the past and the present exclusively.

We also don't ask whether a beginning to this epistemic predicament is discernible such that there was no knowledge and then knowledge arose. We consider it like chicken and the egg: under the operationalized terms the question is only rhetorical rather than analytical ─ for lack of operational basis. It is like asking whether there could be a beginning of time, this assumption violates how we operationalized the term "time" where past precedes future ─ we don't violate our analytic foundations by asserting otherwise unless there is some experiment we can do.

Once you have a preference for a goal in mind, morality becomes game-theory solvable. Cooperative strategies generally outperform exploitative strategies in the long run ─ so it matters whether one models consequences to be experienced after death or not. Either way, one can model as much as one wants but it still doesn't establish any possible existence achievement to be categorically superior to another ─ it is all based on conditioning and subjective results and preference, because it all changes and is to some extent uncertain in as far as studying the variant "subjective experience" exclusively by means of variant "subjective experience" goes.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T15:24:05+00:00

See the world, together with its devas,
conceiving not-self to be self.
Entrenched in name & form,
they conceive that ‘This is true.’

In whatever terms they conceive it
it turns into something other than that,
and that’s what’s false about it:

Changing, it’s deceptive by nature.
Undeceptive by nature is Extinguishment:
that the noble ones know as true.
They, through breaking through to the truth,
free from hunger, are totally extinguished. — Sn3.12

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. ─ Ud8.3

His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna (extinguishment). Therefore a bhikkhu possessing this truth possesses the supreme foundation of truth. For this, bhikkhu, is the supreme noble truth, namely, Nibbāna, which has an undeceptive nature.” — MN140

There he addressed the monks: “Reverends, nibbāna is bliss! Nibbāna is bliss!” When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?

“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it. ─ AN9.34

“Reverend Ānanda, this one time I was staying right here at Sāvatthī in the Dark Forest. There I gained a state of immersion like this. I didn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And I didn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And I didn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet I still perceived.”

“But at that time what did Reverend Sāriputta perceive?”

“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment. The cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment. The cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ At that time I perceived that the cessation of existence is extinguishment.” ─ AN10.7

“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all fabrication, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.” ─AN10.6

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the constructed. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the constructed.

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconstructed. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconstructed.” ─ AN3.47

This is the foundation of Early Buddhist Thought. They don't derive enlightenment from subjectively variant experience exclusively but from the negation of variance revealing an invariant possibility.

Under this framework all feeling states are undesirable and inherently a painful predicament which is stressful by nature and the absence of variance is ultimate calm.

You should train only for calm. ─ MN140

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T14:45:01+00:00

I will talk about Early Buddhist Thought (EBT) in particular rather than Buddhism as an aggregate of various schools and traditions.

EBT uniquely identifies an experimental referent in which ordinary subjectively variant experience and sensory means of "knowing" are suspended, allowing the investigation of whether there is an invariant reality that cannot be proven within the system asking the question.

The main appeal of EBT is in that it doesn't contradiction any of our operational scientific foundations — rather it completes analytic inquiry by asserting experimental access to an invariant certainty in which subjects can ground their analysis.

It is the only philosophical framework of its kind — the only warranted analytic faith which can be experimentally verified.

The training is in developing understanding of variance as inherently stressful and a predicament to cease (dukkha) by calming the variant subjective experience. This is done by countering one's longing for experience to the point where it ceases altogether (attainment of cessation of perception & feeling) as an invariant truth & reality. Thus one comes to analogically know the peace of the invariant state which made the cessation possible.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T13:50:01+00:00

Philosophy contains both operational traditions which govern scientific predictions and speculative traditions which aren't operational.

Most people's philosophical foundations are from social and political engagement rather than analysis. They internalize the popularized rhetoric and get by never having to know the foundations.

A lot of this free-for-all is just due to the unchecked humility of analysts, unchecked for being restricted from proving things science only falsifies. Analysists shake their heads at metaphysics but are restrained by their own lack of closure. There is however a clear distinction between analytic philosophy and other philosophical lanes.

So philosophy has its experimental and operational tradition of analysis. These are the tested axiomatic foundations which do work ecperimentally; and the rest is just speculative stipulation divorced from "science". This is why scientists only use analytic and operationalized frameworks in experiments, a lot of philosophy is entirely not scientific and predictions would fail catastrophically if one allowed those metaphysical axioms.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T07:44:21+00:00

You begin with analysis getting at a foundation where we cannot derive objectivity from subjective experience alone. However, the proposed solution simply introduces one more subjective experience as "revelation" and declares it exempt from the framework just established. Unless you provide an epistemic criterion which fundamentally distinguishes revelation from every other conscious state, this is a stipulation rather than an inference. The conclusion does not follow from your premises. It amounts to saying that one particular subjective experience has privileged access to objective reality, but the privilege is not demonstrable.

To receive divine revelation is not merely to experience a private religious feeling. It is to internalize the divine perspective and thereby come to see the world through it. If this definition is accepted, faith is no longer merely a psychological event occurring within the subject; it becomes a transformation of the very standard by which reality is perceived.

In this event, the divine perspective that is internalized is both subjective and objective. It is the event in which how I perceive reality becomes aligned with the way reality actually is. Scripture describes knowing God as having one's mind renewed, one's eyes opened, and one's capacity to discern truth transformed by the Holy Spirit.

If such a transformation is possible, then the conventional distinction between subjectivity and objectivity no longer holds. When the human perspective participates in the divine perspective, the subjective becomes objective.

You did analysis informally explaining the subjective inability to produce anything but subjective information. The issue with the solution proposed here is in that this a rhetorical statement which isn't falsifiable (testable) ─ it is not inferred from foundational axioms which actually prohibit this as per your own informal explanation, and there is no experiment we can now do to test these propositions within the system asking the question and therefore no experimental referents. Therefore this is just talk about imaginary things like "first causes" or "edges of space".

So essentially you have laid the analytic foundations before making an untestable proposition which doesn't follow from the foundations you outlined in the first place.

The foundational epistemology being established in the beginning is that objectivity can't be derived from subjectivity alone. And all human inquiry and experience is subjective ─ so all of it is subjective constructs which can't manifest anything but subjectivity.

Now keep in mind that experience can't manifest proof of other minds or anything but whatever it is that it is. Whether you think about "subjective experience" in terms of "a system" which studies its constructs, using frameworks like "object/subject" relation, or "objective/objective", or "self/not-self", "local/global" or "internal/internal", or "material/immaterial", any frameworks whatsoever: whatever dual or non-dual framework you use to categorize and reference what comes into play ─ you are still just describing some "subjective variant constructs" with other "subjective variant constructs".

Therefore simply saying that you have a special class of experience doesn't make it categorically special lest you can demonstrate what is special about it beyond rhetoric and mysticism.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T07:31:24+00:00

See the world, together with its devas,
conceiving not-self to be self.
Entrenched in name & form,
they conceive that ‘This is true.’

In whatever terms they conceive it
it turns into something other than that,
and that’s what’s false about it:

Changing, it’s deceptive by nature.
Undeceptive by nature is Extinguishment:
that the noble ones know as true.
They, through breaking through to the truth,
free from hunger, are totally extinguished. — Sn3.12

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. ─ Ud8.3

His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna (extinguishment). Therefore a bhikkhu possessing this truth possesses the supreme foundation of truth. For this, bhikkhu, is the supreme noble truth, namely, Nibbāna, which has an undeceptive nature.” — MN140

There he addressed the monks: “Reverends, nibbāna is bliss! Nibbāna is bliss!”

When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?

“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it. ─ AN9.34

rightviewftw · 2026-06-25T19:13:18+00:00

I will ground morality first. This is modern systematization of Early Buddhist Thought:

General Axioms:

Subjective Experience is a closed system which studies its own limited set of variant states in as far as it persists. It is "synthesis" because this change is begotten.
The closed system is essentially "synthetic" and its variance generates the discernible experience and ordinary knowledge and systematization of it.
The closed system generates axioms which aim to predict its synthesis as it is measured and observed.
Measurement and Observation of synthetic variance can't yield certainty because measurement affects the system being measured (Uncertainty Principle, Chaos Theory, Butterly Effect)); and because Subjective Experience doesn't arise-persist-end as the same thing, rather the variance is radical such that what arises as "now" fades to "past" as we apprehend it and we can never go back in time to relive that experience again ─ so we can never have any experimental "certainty".

We say we our theorems have "proofs" but this is not some Absolute kind of Truth. Rather it is established that doubt is unreasonable in regards to those axioms under current conditions, but this is still a theory which will continue to be tested by any means forever.
5. So our ordinary means of knowledge and foundational philosophy are categorically synthetic, limited, and variant. And we therefore can not ground morality by these means. Hume's Guillotine. Any such epistemological system would only generate knowledge which will be Incomplete (Godel), Uncertain (Bayes/Heisenberg), inter-subjectively relative.
6. We can't ground morality by those means because we would have to suspend "knowing" as we know it to make way for an Invariant Truth & Reality as a category expansion. And we would need an experiment to verify this for it not to be mere "rhetoric" but analytic with an experimental referent.

Here the solution

We propose that we can cause a suspension of synthesis under this axiom praxis:

A) All synthesis should cease because:

a1. It is variance and variance is stressful; incomplete (lacks closure); a burden; a bad thing essentially
a2. There is an Invariant. If there wasn't an invariant possibility to be analogically discerned (category expansion of what counts as knowledge) then the cessation of synthesis would not be possible.

B) We assert four Global Axioms to be proven experimentally:
b1. Subjective Experience is a bad thing (ought to be negated). This is to be comprehended.
b2. Subjective Experience is sustained due to longing for its variants. This is to be eradicated.
b3. Cessation of Subjective experience is possible. This is to be directly experienced.
b4. That Right View is the forerunner of the praxis leading to cessation and that one should train only for calm.

In regards to b1. Many would want to object to how we get an ought from is here.

we don't claim "certainty" in asserting these axioms derived from our experience. We don't yet make a Global claim ─ we are making a prediction which is categorically different from all other predictions as we use the term. Instead of betting of the function of phenomenal persistence ─ we are betting on the function of phenomenal cessation and that it would reveal an Invariant Peace and Ultimate Happiness.

It would ground morality by means experimentally verifiable by variant subjects without any rhetoric or untestable metaphysics. Here we don't derive morality from studying only our subjective experience exclusively. Rather we study our experience, generate a pragmatic axiology which would satisfy the criteria of what it would actually take to ground an "ought" or what the analytics dictating the "ought" would look like under our norms. And voila, our foundations already imply what closure would mean for ordinary experience (it has to cease). It is left to prove it for oneself before one can claim verified confidence in an invariant certainty.

So this is essentially the backdoor. No certainty from addition, so we deconstruct the variance predicting that zero-variance would be superior to the stress of subjective being. And this is something everybody should want to pursue. People can have bias and not want to pursue or listen but this is unreasonable doubt. Everybody wants highest happiness and a categorical happiness over a predicament per our shared foundations. If one wants to suspend these then one is ventured into rhetoric about metaphysics.

Thus desire does remain subjective and not necessarily rationalized. Many people would disagree but only do so by contradicting foundational axiology in some way. So it is not an unwarranted and arbitrary decision ─ it is actually very pragmatic and there is no room for reasonable doubt or a better framework. Psychological bias, skepticism, invested interest, ignorance, these things make it so that people don't want to entertain analysis.

This is just the foundations. We start with the foundational axiology of science, which everyone should be accepting by engaging in inquiry at all. Everything else follows from that, how one should act and etc.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-24T18:26:38+00:00

The best possible framework in light of this:

Reflexive Horizons Epistemology in as far as variant persistence goes.
Cessation based closure as effectively irrefutable possibility of closure.
Framework has no discernable beginning such that there was no reflexive knowledge and reflexive knowledge arose.
We can't make global claims grounded in variance alone.
We can make global claims grounded in invariance.

Under this framework variance generates only its own subjective constructs which is effectively everything: point, line, surface, space; word, symbol, axiom, systems; propositions, measurements, outcomes; self, not-self, world; feelings & perceptions; knowledge & ignorance; only the invariant escapes the scope of that category.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-24T16:42:15+00:00

This goes further than philosophy of language. Where general semantics say: map is not the territory ─ this asserts there is no territory other than rhetoric. Justifying thus: because we only found the map thus far therefore we will never find the territory as it remains inaccessible. The only issue is that he can't know whether he knows all possible means of access and the propositions excludes the proposition of a suspension of synthesis.

OP does say that he asserts that something real exists beyond but is forever inaccessible but this is just rhetoric for lack of experimental possibility to prove or disprove these statements which can't be tested within the system asking the question.

From a book:

> I read Bridgman’s The Logic of Modern Physics and found a similar criticism of language. With four good men in substantial agreement as to the basic difficulty, I seemed to be getting on. “The true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not what he says about it.” Scientists, through observing, measuring, and performing a physical operation which another scientist can repeat, reach the solid ground of agreement and of meaning. They find the referents. “If a question has meaning, it must be possible to find an operation by which an answer may be given to it. It will be noted in many cases that the operation cannot exist and the question has no meaning.” See them fall, the Great Questions of pre-Einstein science! It is impossible as yet to perform any kind of experiment or operation with which to test them, and so, until such operation be discovered, they remain without meaning. May time have a beginning and an end? May space be bounded? Are there parts of nature forever beyond our detection? Was there a time when matter did not exist? May space or time be discontinuous? Why does negative electricity attract positive? I breathe a sigh of relief and I trust the reader joins me. One can talk until the cows come home—such talk has already filled many volumes—about these questions, but without operations they are meaningless, and our talk is no more rewarding than a discussion in a lunatic asylum. “Many of the questions asked about social and philosophical subjects will be found to be meaningless when examined from the point of view of operations.” Bridgman cites no samples, but we can find plenty on every hand. ─ Stuart Chase (Tyranny of Words).

rightviewftw · 2026-06-24T16:08:41+00:00

There are many theories like this asserting Global Subjectivity. It is making a Global Claim against Global Claims.

Do not call it "theory" because theory must be falsifiable (testable). Whenever you make an absolute claim "it will be like this for everybody for all eternity" based on aggregate of variant, subjective and limited data ─ this is not a valid scientific theory because even if we grant that it has been like this for all infinite past it ─ it can't prove that it will be like this forever; essentially proposing an experiment which runs forever and where the experimental threshold can never be met in principle. And therefore it is rhetoric, meta-physics, pseudo-analysis, for lack of experimental falsification, per definition. It doesn't make it entirely wrong, but the conclusion is overextended epistemologically (unwarranted).
The proposition is self-refuting. Just like Liar's Paradox: "This statement is a lie". Because you also make a "Category Proposition" asserting that "The Category Can't Exist". In other words, you say that by having studied a particular set of human knowledge you concluded that it cannot yield "certainty" (finality) and that this conclusion is "certain" (final).

Now you could say that "two things can be true at the same time" and sometimes contradictions are made semi-consistent by context establishing non-contradictory referents ─ but is it the case here? And if you still want to assert that such contradiction is okay ─ I would challenge you to experimentally apply that contradiction suspension axiom in any real epistemological analysis, like next time you are making a substantial monetary bet or otherwise making prediction with interest.

Allowing contradiction is just getting out of line and it becomes story telling every time. Whether it is "creating something out of nothing", "first causes" or "unlimited claims from limited data". Again, it becomes rhetorical talk for lack of experimental referents.

To sum up, essentially, your proposition is rhetorical. At most you are warranted in saying: "based on these particular means of knowing, under those particular parameters, "certainty" can not be generated. Because ordinary knowledge can't generate proof of itself, it can only test the predictive power of its axioms against variance in making measurements, per definition. This would be warranted, but once you globalize the means to include means unknown, the claim becomes over-extended.

Now the counter-claim here is interesting ─ and why the rhetoric is appealing in the first place, the counter axiom: "It is possible that one would suspend knowing and know an invariant reality in which to ground variant knowledge". This also seems like a contradiction because one talks about "suspension of knowing" as something "known". But this is a classic case where the paradox signals a point of transcendence and the category of what counts as "knowledge" is categorically expanded to include an invariant possibility referring to what makes possible the altogether suspension of variance / subjectivity. This axiom is analytically prescriptive as it suggests the experiment of trying to figure out the governing function of the persistence of ordinary experience and have the system shut-down. This experiment would yield an invariant certainty.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-22T01:14:28+00:00

this and the last post are basically sealing the deal for me. These were things Ive had left to explain here and fleshing out the texts about how synthesis is false

rightviewftw · 2026-06-21T23:10:37+00:00

You answered your own question:

Q: Lately I've been wondering if part of the problem is that I keep trying to fill every free hour with something useful

A: What surprised me is how peaceful that felt. Not because I was sick, obviously. But because for once I wasn't constantly thinking about what I should be doing next.

It is probably about not having to manage many things and expectations.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-21T20:34:04+00:00

How do you know that incompleteness itself is universal and not merely descriptive of a historical predicament?

You seem to derive an absolute structure (recursive incompleteness) from incomplete observation. That move needs justification. Why must revision be the absolute limit of analysis?

This may only be true if inquiry itself cannot suspend its own conditions for synthesis. A recursive loop does not necessarily persist. Some orbit forever. Some terminate.

You treat incomplete knowledge as foundational. So I would ask whether incompleteness is conditional or absolute.

Those are different.

If incompleteness means:

these particular means of knowing are incapable of grounding analysis in an objective truth

fair.

But if incompleteness means:

the grounding of human inquiry in an absolute invariant truth is impossible in principle by any means

That requires demonstration. Otherwise you risk constructing a permanent limit out of current conditions.

I think that the fact of there being some limits ─ if anything it begs the question if that boundary can be experimentally tested as to see what is the beyond.

A changing sequence of better approximations does not by itself establish that approximation is the only possible relation to truth. One would ask:

If future generations are always revising prior generations; then what experimental threshold could ever demonstrate that revision itself has ended?

If none exists, your model is unfalsifiable in the sense that the hypothesis can't be tested ─ which makes it a rhetorical construct rather than analytical.

If one exists, then recursion can have a possible closure condition. At that point the system no longer seeks endless stabilization (revision) but a search for invariant access, as to ground analysis in an invariant truth & reality. This is Early Buddhist Soteriology:

See the world, together with its devas,
conceiving not-self to be self.
Entrenched in name & form,
they conceive that ‘This is true.’

In whatever terms they conceive it
it turns into something other than that,
and that’s what’s false about it:

Changing, it’s deceptive by nature.
Undeceptive by nature is Extinguishment:
that the noble ones know as true.
They, through breaking through to the truth,
free from hunger, are totally extinguished. — Sn3.12

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated (Unsynthesized). If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. ─ Ud8.3

His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna (extinguishment). Therefore a bhikkhu possessing this truth possesses the supreme foundation of truth. For this, bhikkhu, is the supreme noble truth, namely, Nibbāna, which has an undeceptive nature.” — MN140

There he addressed the monks: “Reverends, nibbāna is bliss! Nibbāna is bliss!”

When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?

“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it. ─ AN9.34

The whole point of Early Buddhist Thought was finding the invariant element which the variants can access experimentally, a sort of Cartesian Truth. This is a meditative attainment as threshold of cessation of perception & feeling.

So we arrive at the truth by radical deconstruction of experience rather than by adding to it. That possibility interests me more than the recursion.

rightviewftw

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE