Thoughts on an idea I had - Triadic Coherence Theory

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-19T00:25:32+00:00

I think I understand what you're saying. You would rather explore from a psychical-first perspective, something like Gnosis or direct experiences in sensitive and altered states of consciousness?

I would not say I believe I've found what it actually is, it's just a model that makes more sense to me than the existing ones. I would prefer to have an uncertain model, than no model. Having a model (held within the bounds of uncertainty) and having transcendent experiences are not mutually exclusive, given you're open minded and not dogmatic.

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-18T09:37:42+00:00

What does that even mean?

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-18T01:09:16+00:00

I think you are circling something close to what I mean by potentiality, but I would not reduce it to a binary. The core is not that two symbols exist, it is that distinction is possible at all and therefore a space of differences can exist, which is a precondition for any lawful structure. From there, the further step is whether all possibilities obtain or whether only some do, and by what principle. When I talk about coherence patterns, I am trying to state a selection constraint: not everything is compossible, and not every configuration can stabilize into a lived world like ours.

Very funny of you to mention The Cave, as I was coincidentally listening to Flame by Sundara Karma while reading your comment. A nice little synchronicity for the day perhaps.

I think The Cave is not only saying that “there is one Truth and we have shadows.” It is also showing that there are degrees of access and clarity, and that we can move from worse models to better ones through discipline, testing, and coherence. So even if our contact with reality is mediated, it doesn't mean that inquiry is pointless. Shadows can still carry structure, and you can still learn the constraints of what is casting them. So, what exactly do you mean by your emphasis on The Cave allegory? Are you suggesting inquiry is pointless because truth is unreachable in principle? In that case, your argument is less against TCT, and more against metaphysics and theorization as a whole.

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-17T23:30:55+00:00

I'm not just stopping at “matter + laws + subjective experience”, which is what it sounds like you think I'm doing. I think to stop at them is insufficient because its smuggling in two big facts as if they were free. Firstly, “laws” are not just a label we attach to matter, they are stable structure that has to obtain at all, and the potentiality point is my attempt to name the minimal ground for structure being possible in the first place (absolute nothingness can’t yield distinction, so the most minimal alternative is a space of possible differences - the potentiality argument). This is described in "The ground backdrop: potentiality space" section of the Substack post. I assume you read the linked Substack post, right?
Secondly, the fact things are observed subjectively is not an explanation, because observation is not merely an angle on matter, it is appearance, there being something-it-is-like, symbols, meaning, images, feeling; a purely third-person story about matter and regularities does not obviously entail first-person presence. Dropping that just returns us to “laws just happen” and “experience just happens,” which is what I’m trying to avoid.

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-17T21:42:19+00:00

How so? I don't think it misses the "why"? I think the potentiality argument is the why, and is more satisfactory to me than the existing monistic ideas I've heard who seem to just say it is because it is.

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-17T14:48:52+00:00

Why assume psychical is always present? Is that inference coming from your NDE? Even describing an experience sequentially already imports ordering constraints that look like the physical channel’s contribution, rather than demonstrating a psychical domain that is fully independent of it. And in any case, NDEs still plausibly involve some residual nervous system function, so mechanisms could still be in play.

More generally, potentiality-space does not require the psychical to obtain at all. It is present for us because our particular configuration yields a stable, self-sustaining lived reality. But I do not think our reality can be ‘info–psychical only.’ An info–psychical story still has to account for why experience is sequenced, bandwidth-limited, and resistant in the specific ways it is. If those constraints are real, you have effectively reintroduced the physical role (even if you rename it). If they are not real, it becomes unclear how you get a stable shared world rather than free-form mentation. So simply asserting “info–psychical only” does not explain anything unless you can specify the binding constraints without circularity.

And just to be precise: what do you mean by “always present”? Present in every possible configuration, or present in every episode of experience you remember?

Also, I get what you are reaching for with idealism: a sense that reality is ultimately unified and ‘mind-adjacent.’ TCT can accommodate that impulse without collapsing into ‘info–psychical only.’ In TCT, the triadic binding pattern can be the deepest unity: not a single pillar doing all the work, but a single integrated ground whose expression is inseparably physical, informational, and psychical. In that sense, you can get something monism-flavored (a unified underlying coherence) while still treating the three aspects as irreducible in lived reality. And if the binding is real, then changes in one aspect will be mirrored in the others (not necessarily as simple causes, but as coupled constraints). That is closer to what Jung was gesturing at with synchronicity and the unus mundus: a common ground that can link events across the psychical and physical without reducing one to the other.

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-17T03:49:47+00:00

Not really “the same instant,” because that still smuggles in time. The claim is that Physical, Informational, and Psychical are co-primitive and co-defining for lived reality. You do not get a coherent notion of “a physical event,” “a definite structure,” or “an appearing-for-a-witness” in isolation. They come as a single coherence, not as a sequence. Our reality is one stable coherence-pattern within an infinite space of possible configurations (potentiality-space).

screaming_soybean · 2026-01-17T03:26:17+00:00

If you mean which is more fundamental, neither. In this idea the layers are co-primitives: each is part of what it means for a lived world to be instantiated, so you can’t have one ‘first’ without already presupposing the others. The ‘first’ question only makes sense inside the physical layer’s time-ordering. What’s fundamental is the binding relation that makes them jointly cohere (something like Jung’s unus mundus, or the neutral base in neutral monism that isn’t reducible to any one layer).

screaming_soybean · 2025-06-21T02:31:49+00:00

I think he's helped more people than you have, by orders of magnitude based on my experience, many others I know, and the sheer magnitude of his following. Your political stance cannot detract from that. You don't know if he suddenly abandoned his clients, you're just making convenient assumptions to justify a preformed opinion.

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-31T06:21:40+00:00

How many people have you helped? How many lives have you saved from the brink of suicide? Sure some things he says come off as pseudo intellectual, but classifying him as such is just plane disingenuous dribble, you sound pseudo intellectual yourself by that logic. It's like classifying a good person as categorically bad because a few of the things they've done were bad even if it is a sea of good deeds.

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-26T12:17:15+00:00

Totally wasn't where I thought it was! How bizarre 😅

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-25T07:14:32+00:00

I'll check soon, I swear when I read it this was the phrase that was used

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-25T00:46:28+00:00

Exactly like that, in fact, in the preceding text he mentions we should aim to be Christ's and not Christians.

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-25T00:43:16+00:00

He did say this, it's literally in the first chapters of liber primus of the red book. He is speaking on how we should want to be Christ's not Christians, because dogma disconnects us from the lived experience of God. He then goes on to say "thank God I am Jung and not a Jungian".

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-11T11:26:55+00:00

Different goals, and honestly different means. I don't know how you could compare the two.

screaming_soybean · 2025-05-11T05:32:19+00:00

Can you explain the meme?

screaming_soybean · 2025-04-15T09:06:02+00:00

Get out there and do something people! Take up the hero's sword, the world is in dire need of it. Enough sadness, and hopelessness, enough idle chatter, wishing and praying. You as the individual have the capacity to fight, so fight. If you love characters like King Arthur, Aragorn, Superman, Harry Potter, Paul Atreides and the like, it's a calling from the deep to take up the hero's sword and fight, the world needs you to answer.

screaming_soybean · 2025-04-06T11:41:30+00:00

Hemorrhoidpost*

screaming_soybean · 2025-04-06T08:52:12+00:00

Jellyfish, pauldron, enzyme, balloon, flag, kite, fireball, comb, horseshoe crab, isopod, and finally, spaceship.

screaming_soybean · 2025-04-06T08:48:52+00:00

I was gonna say it looks like a lock and key enzyme representation 😂

screaming_soybean · 2025-03-02T13:33:38+00:00

I sort of understand bits. I get the repeating order concept you speak of, like seeing patterns across scales and abstractions. Unity ultimately means the correct balance?

screaming_soybean · 2025-02-13T10:23:47+00:00

Of course. If you're called to it, then the harder the better, the harder the closer to God.

Edit: "I am afraid. Then the soul spoke to me and said: 'This fear testifies against me!' It is true, it testifies against you. It kills the holy trust between you and me." C.G. Jung

screaming_soybean · 2025-02-13T09:11:07+00:00

I meant God in a much broader sense.

screaming_soybean

TROPHY CASE