I’ve started a new blog/forum similar to this one (https://arnoldsicily.wixsite.com/perceptive-minds) & I’m looking for people who are on similar wavelengths. Your application of vertical complexity to ontology is intriguing & I’d like to discuss how meditation fits in with the CTMU & vertical complexity with respect to that framework. To be perhaps too brief, the CTMU describes reality as an evolving self-configuring, self-processing language that evolves in ‘vertical complexity’ in the way that ‘meta-languages’, meta-meta-languages’, ‘meta-meta-meta-languages’ & so on, might be said to evolve in vertical complexity. I’ve noted an important correspondence between ontology & a logico-mathematical framework for it’s constituency. I also note similarities to Buddhism. The CTMU’s discoverer/inventor, said this of Buddhism, that it, “is an essentially nihilistic philosophy in which the evolution of self culminates in self-annihilation. This implies that the self is a manifestation of pure nothingness which deludes itself regarding its own existence. The scientific equivalent is known as ex nihilo cosmogony. This, however, is a metaphysical absurdity whose existence would collapse the logical structure of reality like a soap bubble in a vacuum. So much for Buddhism as currently defined. Fortunately, there now exists a philosophical scalpel—the CTMU—sharp enough to excise Buddhism’s absurdities and thereby clear the way for a constructive reinterpretation of its more valuable insights. In the future, a reconstructed form of Buddhism will be merely one aspect of a single religion based on the power and infallibility of God’s first and most unbreakable law, logic.” (http://colloquysociety.org/col10nag.htm)
Where everything came from nothing & is thereby reducibly nothing & a most differentiated view of reality & means of building reality (in a Laws of Form type argument) would be to recognize this, I understand the perspective of nihilism. At the same time, this is not nihilism because it does not negate the universe that comes from nothing, to put it bluntly.
Anyways, your stage 7 seems in great correspondence to the CTMU. Have you heard of the CTMU?
It’s written by Langan himself. He’s written a lot more introductory materials for those that don’t have the prerequisite background to digest the CTMU. Let me know if you have any confusions, should you look into it.
Hi there,
I’ve started a new blog/forum similar to this one (https://arnoldsicily.wixsite.com/perceptive-minds) & I’m looking for people who are on similar wavelengths. Your application of vertical complexity to ontology is intriguing & I’d like to discuss how meditation fits in with the CTMU & vertical complexity with respect to that framework.
To be perhaps too brief, the CTMU describes reality as an evolving self-configuring, self-processing language that evolves in ‘vertical complexity’ in the way that ‘meta-languages’, meta-meta-languages’, ‘meta-meta-meta-languages’ & so on, might be said to evolve in vertical complexity.
I’ve noted an important correspondence between ontology & a logico-mathematical framework for it’s constituency. I also note similarities to Buddhism. The CTMU’s discoverer/inventor, said this of Buddhism, that it, “is an essentially nihilistic philosophy in which the evolution of self culminates in self-annihilation. This implies that the self is a manifestation of pure nothingness which deludes itself regarding its own existence. The scientific equivalent is known as ex nihilo cosmogony. This, however, is a metaphysical absurdity whose existence would collapse the logical structure of reality like a soap bubble in a vacuum. So much for Buddhism as currently defined. Fortunately, there now exists a philosophical scalpel—the CTMU—sharp enough to excise Buddhism’s absurdities and thereby clear the way for a constructive reinterpretation of its more valuable insights. In the future, a reconstructed form of Buddhism will be merely one aspect of a single religion based on the power and infallibility of God’s first and most unbreakable law, logic.” (http://colloquysociety.org/col10nag.htm)
Where everything came from nothing & is thereby reducibly nothing & a most differentiated view of reality & means of building reality (in a Laws of Form type argument) would be to recognize this, I understand the perspective of nihilism. At the same time, this is not nihilism because it does not negate the universe that comes from nothing, to put it bluntly.
Anyways, your stage 7 seems in great correspondence to the CTMU. Have you heard of the CTMU?
I haven’t heard of CTMU.
I recommend looking into it. It’s an excellent extension of what you describe here.
Here’s a bit of a primer:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180725230323/http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Theory.html
It’s written by Langan himself. He’s written a lot more introductory materials for those that don’t have the prerequisite background to digest the CTMU. Let me know if you have any confusions, should you look into it.