I'm so sad.

Given the two dynamics of Axiom I Reflection and Axiom II Rotation, does Axiom III also have a corresponding dynamic? Convolution was mentioned in the video. Does that refer to the Axiom I dynamic or would that be the Axiom III dynamic? My first thought was that Axiom III would be associated with the dynamic of Rescaling, or Renormalization, since the statement of Axiom III sort of prevents movement of each individual element relative to the others (given the whole "non-interchangability" part), so the only way I saw to "move things" within Axiom III is to move the whole structure either inward or outward. e.g. either consider a triple as being constituent of a single element in a higher order triple, or to unpack one of the elements of a given triple into a triple of it's own. I guess if one takes the triple structure as a sort of kernel, then one could see this operation as a convolution of the kernel with itself? Is that the right way to think about this?

"City is going to be post-Dunbar.." Interesting.

It's sad to think that communities like this are quite some distance in the future..but it's exciting to know more and more are thinking about this in deeper and deeper ways.

We're working on establishing a land trust for our community. The governance question is looming so we'd really benefit from your thoughts on this, Forrest.

The five factors can be seen as manifestations of two aspects, called Stability and Plasticity in the literature. Stability has factors of Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Inverse Neuroticism. Plasticity has factors of Extraversion and Openness to Experience. Given this, if one wanted to refactor the existing notions to fit with the Axioms and Modalities, looking into refactoring Plasticity into three factors instead of two might be the way to go. Each of the five factors breaks up into two aspects, but I suspect that trying to separate these aspects out into a separate factor probably won't work. Hovhannisyan and Vervaeke (Enactivist Big Five Theory, 2021) make the argument that these underlying aspects form the generative and selective facets of each of the factors, so they are probably inseparable. That's probably why the five factor level has the highest ratio of inter-concept variance:intra-concept variance. If a first pass attempt is made to map the five factors within the groupings of the two aspects: Agreeableness is concerned with the second-person, Conscientiousness is concerned with the third-person, (Inverse) Neuroticism is concerned with the first-person? With the Plasticity factors, the mapping isn't as clear to me. Extraversion can be seen as concerned with the second-person, I guess? Though since it's also concerned with sensitivity to reward in general it could also be any of the other two perspectives. Openness can likewise be framed as being concerned with any of the perspectives. So maybe the perspectives triple isn't the relevant one for the Plasticity aspect?

Wow! This is an exciting notion that has been on my mind often!

17:05 life is complex, if you simplify it, it will die

The third concept for sameness and difference that came to me was spectrum or degree.

This has been my experience. Ontology, and epistemology sort of have within them the notion of “perception” of either of the two, in which case one can only directly perceive and know a thing from the very process by which the “know” (epistemology) and the very process by which they “are” (ontology). The direct doing of this cannot happen from either the first or second mode, one must be able to be in the first person, that is, they must be able to “be” with the knowledge of the knowledge that they “are” and that that being and that knowledge is “good”.

Beautifully put. How can we get a conversation between him, John Vervaeke, Jordan Hall and Iain Mcgilchrist around the notion of scalability as it relates to governance?

Helping me understand here. Thank you for the post

I’m so happy to see us here. Thank You Forrest and Ben and everyone who is behind this. With Love, Joey

How does Godel's Completeness Theorem (in contrast to the Incompleteness Theorem) factor into the ICT? Is there some insufficiency of first-order logic that necessitates the move to higher-order logics? Is that move necessary before the conditions for the application of the ICT become satisfied, thereby allowing the specification/instruction of the ICT into Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? If so, can you outline what the necessary strength of a logic needs to be before the ICT becomes applicable? Or if not, can you outline how the ICT squares with the Completeness Theorem?

Simulation theorists won't like this much. Or maybe they will.

so in a way, the three aspects of a healthy connection with yourself and others is the ability to love yourself enough to give yourself emotional safety, love other people enough to give them emotional safety, and to love the bond enough to accept emotional safety from someone else?

"Everything we think is one turns out to be two, and the relationship between two and one turns out to be three." WOW. Was this relationship referenced in Daoism? I was always confused by the 1,2,3 concept, but this seems to elucidate. "The Tao gives birth to the One. The One gives birth to the Two. The Two give birth to the Three. The Three give birth to the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things are bolstered by Yin and wield Yang. Together they harmonize as Breath." Tao Te Ching "If anyone has mastered this, he will quickly cut you into three pieces even before the one has been raised and the three understood. How much more so when you meet him face to face?" Sword Taia

cool!! I have been finding resources for EGP actually! a month ago.. before this video was uplaoded

For those wondering, it might help to put one of the is-es is quotes and to italicize the middle is for emphasis. Then work through the combinations and see what they mean. If that isn't enough for completion, try similar tricks by which to distinguish and relate the three instances of is.

So can it be said that what drives the progression of Axiom II for a given triple is a secondary triple coupled to the transitions within the first? e.g. for the triple of technology, nature, and human, Given some technology, A choice to use that technology is a particular way makes certain things possible. Given nature, Changes within that nature yield organisms adapted to that change. Given humanity, Causation instrumentalized to fulfil the needs, wants, and desires of those humans yields/is technology. So I guess two additional triples are needed? In the case of technology, nature, and humanity, the triple of choice, change, and causation, and the triple of needs, wants, and desires are both necessary? Does this generalize more broadly?

Beautiful. Something is coming alive in me as I am slowly over many months digesting and being ingested by this language. I appreciate you, and I thank you, and Im grateful that this is here, as it seems to be emerging into a public consciousness

Forrest refers to an essay here. Is there a link available?

Do inquiry, comparison, and intrinsicality form a bound triple? I ask because, in my own thinking, I usually find myself ending up trying to ground things in either the intrinsics of inquiry or the intrinsics of comparison. I was trying to figure out if inquiry and comparison were elements of a triple, and figured that if there were no other triple to which it would need to refer, then this triple would have to account for the notion of something being intrinsic. So why not make that the third element. But the notion of something being intrinsic seems different from the process of inquiry and the process of comparison. Almost too different. However, this tentative triple can be mapped as follows: Inquiry is epistemology. Intrinsicality is ontology. Comparison is axiology. Which makes me think that I'm onto something. If that mapping is correct, what exactly is the relationship between comparison and axiology? There's the obvious need to compare current state to needed/wanted/desired state, but I'm not sure if that's all there is to it. There seems to be more here that I'm not seeing. Also, does recursive application of a notion count as invokation of a class/plurality of that notion? e.g. Inquiry of inquiry leads to comparison comparison of comparison leads to intrinsicality Intrinsics of intrinsics leads to inquiry? Not sure if this cycle is correct on my part. It seems a bit off. e.g. you outline in the video how recursive inquiry/epistemology can lead to ontology/intrinsics, rather than to axiology/comparison.

3 huh?

👍

What aspect of science is demonstrably insufficient by its own standards? From the perspective of metaphysics, its insufficiency is obvious. But if one is taking and has always taken the third person as primary, what could be presented that would compel one to expand one's scope? By what criterion could one recognize from within the third person perspective that the third person perspective was insufficient? I guess more generally, a plurality of Omniscient instances preceeds a single instance of the Transcendent, but what actually moves that transition forward, so to speak? The ultimacy of the Omniscient seems like an attractor that engulfs the primacy of the Transcendent and the centrality of the Immanent. What causes it to change, since choice is not within the domain of the Omniscient?

Lol not 42

What do you mean by the notion of fundamental? I think if a modernist were to hear that word they might think of reductionism and supervenience, i.e. that something is more fundamental that something else if one can have a thing without having the less fundamental thing, or that all the variance in the less fundamental thing is fully included within the more fundamental thing. And from there they would go on to posit causation as not only the most fundamental relative to choice and change, but the only one of the three that actually exists. Where existence is taken by them as the only form of Being that matters. But Axiom 3 prevent this from being the notion of fundamentality that you are invoking. Axiom 3 also prevents simplicity, or number of assumptions, from being the measure of fundamentality, since the assumptive load of a triple is carried by all its members due to their inseperability. So then without simply identifying fundamentality with Axiom 1, what does a more fundamental notion do that other, less fundamental notions don't do? By what does one distinguish fundamentality from non fundamentality, besides relation (since that would just be begging the question)? Furthermore, one of the main reasons some would prefer a causal/objective grounding is because it allows for straightforward methods of bias correction. How would a grounding in change/real prevent a schizophrenic spiral of self-delusion? Would Axiom 2 be necessary? If so, isn't totalization still utilized then since when one transitions focus to the other modalities, one makes use of the framing of those modalities (in this case, the totalization of the Omniscient)?

One thing I haven't been able to get my head around is how the noticing of the modalities in multiple domains is a sufficient basis for their reification. Just because one can't think of a counterexample to a domain having the three modalities at its root doesn't seem to me to imply that it is necessarily that way for all domains. I think that the Axioms are ultimately correct as you have presented them (or rather, I would not be surprised if they were), but what exactly demonstrates the necessity, sufficiency, and closure of the modalities? Is it the idea that the modalities encompass the notion of abstraction itself? If so, can you elaborate more on how this encompassing is a sufficient demonstration of closure, if it is that? Or if there are other factors that need to be considered, can you explicate what those other factors are? --- Also, a separate, simpler question. If one has two things and the relation between them, doesn't one also need a relation between the things and the relation, and so on ad infinitum? I ask not because I think this is a defeater or anything, but because I'm not sure what your answer would be.

👍

🙏♥ Discernment about discernment, yes! Thank you Forrest! It is very clear, I love it! The number three is a skill that needs development in my way of relating. I would love to go deeper in that relational realm of understanding, feeling and embodying.

Diagrams are so good for understanding! Is there any chance you're planning to explain some of the aspects of your immanent metaphysics using diagrams? You have a solid toolbox for thinking about the relationship between concepts that would be so useful if only I could understand it more!

Thank you Forrest. Knowing that one can discern all of these capacities is a meaningful gift 🙏

This might be a naive question on my part, but do you see any feasible way in which the negative impacts of substrate needs convergence can be ameliorated? As far as I can tell, there isn't really a set of forces in place that is sufficient to slow technological advancements enough to prevent technology from getting to the point where substrate needs convergence comes into effect. Though to be fair, I am about as ignorant on these matters as one can get while still knowing about them. In your post titled "Overall orientation to 'What is needed?'", most of the things that you note are, in short, improvements in interpersonal relations. Do you see this as being able to forestall technological advancement, or is that what is needed for dealing with the consequences of AI/human substrate misalignment? (That is, if my understanding of the consequences of the substrate needs convergence argument is correct; the point is that AI will require different things from the environment than humans and will seek to optimize those things, independent of our well being, right? Or am I misunderstanding?)