A Correspondence of Ontological Categories and the Jewish Script

[Brandon Woodson]

Okay, as agreed in an earlier post, I've collected and compared a few example sets of basic ideas meant to represent the ontological categories, and found most to be either too general and/or incomplete or too specific and superfluous. The abstractions derived from the Hebrew alphabet, or the Jewish script, presents the ideas in a way that (seemingly) is complete enough and accessible to the practical analyst. It implements a simple scheme which bears further explanation, so I've included a brief description. I used the webpage of the Meru Research Foundation webpage, cross-referenced against other resources located on the web to establish accuracy and further a personal sense of understanding of the categorizations purportedly symbolized.

The modern Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 letters in medial form and five letters in final-letter form, which are merely modifications of five of the preceding 22, for a total of 27 letter total. That is, Kaf (final), Mem (final), Nun (final), Pe (final), Tsadi (final), are repeated in a medial and final-letter form. The paleo-Hebrew script does not, and only consists of the first 22. Because they may all prove important for maintaining the overall scheme, some method may have to be devised to visually and auditorily represent the final five of the 27 letter along with the paleo-Hebrew characters, unless one elects to stick with only the modern alphabet.

There are 9 basic ideas, which are interspersed between three forms: archetypal, inner (manifest or spiritual), and outer (cosmic or physical). Just as above where the phonemic identities of five letters are repeated, so are the 9 basic ideas repeated - to account for the observer (subjective) aspect of all cognition. (According to some mathematicians, only the second of which is needed accurately model of all of reality. Binary logic, anyone?)

(Loosely based on information from meru.org, and for cross-reference, other miscellaneous sites) 

The 9 basic ideas - the archetypes - are:

All
Difference

Action
Division
Connection
Unfoldment/Multiplication
Projection
Encompassment
Completion

The 9 basic ideas are manipulated into inner and outer forms. 

The inner forms of these 9 basic ideas are:

Inner All (Collection)
Inner Difference (Inside)
Inner Action (Internal Action)
Inner Division (Subtraction/Isolation)
Inner Connection (Middle/Nexus/Center)
Inner Multiplication (Sustain/Support)
Inner Projection (Infinitesimal/Reception)
Inner Encompassment (Swallow/Engulf)
Inner Completion 

The outer forms of these 9 basic ideas are:

Outer All (Copy)
Outer Difference (Outside)
Outer Action (External Action)
Outer Division (Pluralization)
Outer Connection (Possess)
Outer Multiplication (Expansion)
Outer Projection (Infinity/Projection)
Outer Encompassment (Puff out)
Outer Completion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Above are the abstractions which are based on the concrete manifestations of each letter. The concrete manifestations themselves weren't included. However, I've link a resources by which the ancient script and the concrete meanings of each term can be found. It might help in the assimilation of each abstraction above to have some visual aid, ergo the preservation of the letters along with the abstractions, especially since the differences between some of the meanings can be quite subtle.

There was much discrepancy from one resource to another, yet I think I finally pinned the most general character relevant to them in each letter. Feel free to check many references for yourself to confirm accuracy, and even criticize, as there might be some error(s) despite my efforts.

To reduce redundancy, I'll mention the inner and outer manifestations, or rather their differences, leaving the individual to personally infer the synthesis (the archetype) between the dualistic inner and outer forms. The script itself may seem redundant on its own. But after applying the context of the observer, which is present no matter what we are contemplating, one realizes the marvelous ingenuity that goes into a system which inherently pays due acknowledgement to observation. And which by its very structure encourages the analyst to consider the thought in the context of the dualism which naturally embodies it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now for the descriptions:


Inner & Outer ALL

Inner All means (from a prospective looking in) the collection, the whole of something. Outer All means (from a prospective looking out) copies or likeness.

From the vantage of a single orange among a bunch of oranges, the orange itself, as a singleton, would be Inner All. Note the heterogeneity. From the same perspective as Outer All, the other oranges are replications of itself. Note the emphasized homogeneity.


Inner & Outer DIFFERENCE

Inner Difference means inside, within. Outer Difference means outside, without.

Pretty self explanatory. The any perspective we takes has both that which is contained, that which is not.

Inner & Outer ACTION

Inner Action means action upon the self. Outer Action means, rather than just action, action by the self (but not upon the self).

Inner & Outer DIVISION

Inner Division is division from the prospective of the divided, so self-removal or isolation. Outer Division is subdivision.

This is a good example where the concrete manifestation of a letter comes in handy. Outer Division is often translated as mark, like the marks of a ruler. The observer sees the objects which is divided, becoming more fractionated. Inner Division is simply removal without awareness of that divided from, though the same event is transpiring. All about the frame of reference.

Inner & Outer CONNECTION

Inner Connection means the center, nexus, middle, or hub. Outer Connection means possession, ownership, an inversion of the former.

Inner & Outer MULTIPLICATION

Inner Multiplication means to support or heal. Outer Multiplication means to unfold, grow, blossom.

Perhaps a good way to think of Inner Multiplication is, when one increases the density of something, the unit itself is reinforced, supported, or strengthened. When something multiplies (in the basic arithmetical or duplicating sense used to teach kids the skill of multiplication) as does Outer Multiplication, the individual unit doesn't strengthen.

Inner & Outer PROJECTION

Inner Projection means to project toward or receive. Outer Projection means project away from (infinitely).

This one is like sight. When light enters the eye, lights is travelling towards the self. However, the span of one's eyesight *can* be viewed as beginning at one's self and extending outward.

Inner & Outer ENCOMPASSMENT

Inner Encompassment means to push outward, or expand from the inside. Outer Encompassment means to engulf, or expand from the outside.

(This duality reminds me of Chris Langan's notion of conspansive duality.)

Inner & Outer COMPLETION

Inner Completion means upright or virtuous. Outer Completion means sturdy.

The distinction here seems more superficial than the others, perhaps because it seems more idealistic than mathematical. Nevertheless it is part of the set, and looks can be deceiving. Maybe the usefulness of this distinction will become more apparent after getting into the swing of applying the letters to quantum wave streaming. If for no other reason, it might serve to keep the ubiquitous observer-object relationship intact. While I intend to use all 27 letters for the time being, feel free to include or exclude this last one based on preference.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe the scrupulous individual might have noticed that there evidently is a general redundancy at play. That is, that the nine archetypes is mostly set in pairs, or mirroring from the end backwards as it proceeds alphabetically, or reverse alphabetically from the beginning forward.

All, Difference, Action, Division, Connection, Multiplication, Projection, Encompassment, Completion

All pairs with Completion
Difference with Encompassment
Action with Projection
Division with Multiplication
Connection by its lonesome.

The design might be a process among the archetypes, leading from the undifferentiated to the differentiated but unified, with Connection being a bridge or connection on a self-referential level between the first and last 4. It's possible the redundancy serves to relate to the hierarchical nature of information and reality.

In any case, there needs to be some justification (besides versatility and considerations for frame of reference) to prevent anyone concerned with simplicity from pruning the alphabet down to the original 9, or even only the latter 18 without the first 9. The most cogent justification I've found so far says (in so many words) that All - Division are analytic functions and Multiplication - Complete are synthetic functions. This would make sense if the script was also used as a creation narrative by mystics.

You see, the analytic/synthetic divide is based on the nature of the action and the inner/outer divide is based on perspective. The relationship between analytic/synthetic divide and the inner/outer divide is the nature of an act from differing perspectives.

Take the inflation of a balloon. An inflated balloon, which consists of the balloon and the gases therein, has certain cause and effect dynamic which depends on perspective. The balloon is inflated to the opposition of the sum of contracting forces of the balloon's material which would expel or compress the gases if it weren't for the gases' overpowering force. As it concerns this simplified example, there are two forces and two agents upon which the two forces act.

From the perspective of the balloon, we are the cause of the contraction and effect of the expansion. From the perspective of all the gases in the balloon, we are the cause of the expansion and the effect of the contraction. Though, mind you, we were crossing identities in one sense (Inner/Outer), we were deconstructing and constructing in another (analytic/synthetic). This example might be used to analogize the distinction between Inner & Outer Difference and Inner & Outer Projection, by the way.

One is free to permanently adopt a reduction of this system, a subset of the characters - maybe the first 9 or latter 18. I think Relational Frame Theorists might be working with a "dumbed-down" set. But the alterations to one's ability to analyze by internalizing all 27 ideas will likely dwarf those reaped by any reduced system. It may help to ease into the system slowly, taking the integration of the 27 ideas in small steps, rather than one bold, gigantic leap.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


And without further ado, an alphabetized correspondence of the alphabet and the mathematical ideas described above.

(Transliterations per Wikipedia)



alef - ALL                                 yod - INNER ALL                                 qof - OUTER ALL

bet - DIFFERENCE                  kaf - INNER DIFFERENCE                   resh - OUTER DIFFERENCE   

gimel - ACTION                       lamed - INNER ACTION                        shin - OUTER ACTION   

dalet - DIVISION                     mem - INNER DIVISION                       tav - OUTER DIVISION 

he - CONNECTION                 nun - INNER CONNECTION                   kaf (final) - OUTER CONNECTION

vav - MULTIPLICATION          samekh - INNER MULTIPLICATION       mem (final) - OUTER MULTIPLICATION

zayin - PROJECTION             ayin - INNER PROJECTION                    nun (final) - OUTER PROJECTION

het - ENCOMPASSMENT        pe - INNER ENCOMPASSMENT             pe (final) - OUTER ENCOMPASSMENT

tet - COMPLETION                tsadi - INNER COMPLETION                   tsadi (final) - OUTER COMPLETION



And links to resources containing the paleo-Hebrew and Hebrew translations and literal meanings of these Hebrew to English transliterations:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/28_chart.html

http://www.meru.org/letteressays/letterindex.html


Despite some obvious differences between the meanings given for the two sources, the above - which is loosely based on the scheme from meru.org - captures the universal concepts best relating to the sum of the translations between the various (named and unnamed) resources used. Also, it resembles the ontological concepts employed by some applications of frame relational theory training, including the one from this study which saw I.Q. score improvements in the 1-2 SD range in such a short time frame:

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1386&context=tpr

(The "more than/less than" concept in the study isn't explicit in the Jewish script alone, to my knowledge, though it's easily deduced thereby implicitly. That concept can be added with relative ease by the individual, if so desired, along with something to represent the laws of transitivity, symmetry, etc.)

I'll begin piloting the so-inspired variant of quantum wave streaming, perhaps starting this week, after I've committed everything to memory and can effortlessly recall the entire script in all sorts of random order. :P Because I anticipate being a.f.k. in a day or so for weeks to follow, I'll sporadically update with progress when able (as time and Internet access permits), and encourage anyone who dares attempt to undertake this most ambitious (and maybe Sisyphean?) exercise in reasoning to eventually do the same.

Also, pointers and suggestions to improve the aforementioned system are greatly appreciated. Seriously. :)
Good luck out there!


--Brandon

[freeurownmind-lookfornothingelse]

http://quizlet.com/47687727/categories-transliterations-flash-cards/

[She will Fly because She is Born]

Brandon, 

What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?

How about as they pertain to the following:

Sam Harris - Free Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)

How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a psychologically therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?

This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:

"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".

So yes overall I must say that I'm very interested in understanding more regarding a potential relationship between self-awareness, free will and different forms of 'brain training'.

Thank you, Brandon

[Brandon Woodson]

http://quizlet.com/47687727/categories-transliterations-flash-cards/


I forgot about that study list. Thank you for posting it.

>"What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?

How about as they pertain to the following:

Sam Harris - Free Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)

How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?"

Those are good questions. I'll take a few days to mull it over. I already detect apparent flaws in Harris' argument, but I haven't yet (satisfactorily) fleshed out details of his argument and my own thoughts to articulate the points and counterpoints into harmony.

>"This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:

'Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)'."

I recall that I intended the (believed) statement of interest to mean that self-awareness in the context of intelligence defined as "the ability to differentiate" must come first. One needs a frame of reference, a perspective from which to differentiate. A frame of reference with minimal intelligence might exist anoetically (though I doubt it is possible for anything to exist without any intelligence whatsoever), but manifest intelligence without frame of reference (not necessarily of the human cognitive variety) is absurd.


>"Thank you, Brandon"


Thank you for the provocative dialog.


--Brandon

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:28 AM, She will Fly because She is Born <daniel.artis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brandon, 

What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?

How about as they pertain to the following:

Sam Harris - Free Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)

How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?

This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:

"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".

So yes overall I must say that I'm very interested in understanding more regarding a potential relationship between self-awareness, free will and different forms of 'brain training'.

Thank you, Brandon

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:11:34 AM UTC+10, Brandon Woodson wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brandon Woodson]

I planned to postpone commenting on Harris' position before I could get to a bookstore, read a copy of Free Will, and fully understand it. But since that isn't likely to happen until later this weekend, I'll deliver a few thoughts on the subject in the meanwhile.

It's my understanding from online reviews that Harris doesn't attempt to define "free will", and perhaps this is for good reason: a theoretically relevant notion of freedom would almost assuredly be wholly gradient, and definitive efforts to demarcate compatibilist free will along a graded scale might be considered arbitrary, and subsequently besieged for its subjectivity.

Incompatibilist strands of free will and determinism, which could be functionally defined as "absolute freedom" and "absolute restriction" (respectively), are non-sensical and fall to the simplest reasoning.

Absolute restriction can't work because incompatibilist determinism claims inevitability of outcome, that each cause could have no other effect. Everything in an absolutely deterministic universe, therefore, is absolutely structured. But action (or every instance of cause and effect) is change, and there is nothing changeable in what has no freedom. Variance is unstructured on an object level; structured on a meta-level.

Absolute freedom, or incompatibilist free will, is similarly puerile, just conversely. I think among the most risible and ironic implications of hypothetically negating constraint is that now perception is dead. (The freest so happens to be the most imperceptive too!)

You could liken the conundrum achieved by either too much or too little freedom to that of a universe with only variant or only invariant qualities.

Call it Panglossian - but my tentative position is compatibilist and that freedom is stratified (in a certain sense, by intelligence, human and non-human) out of logical necessity.


--Brandon

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:28 AM, She will Fly because She is Born <daniel.artis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brandon, 

What are your thoughts on self-awareness and free-will?

How about as they pertain to the following:

Sam Harris - Free Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

(I jumped to the 26:30 min/sec mark ---> He asked the audience to take part in an 'experiment' - listeners can join)

How about as they relate to image streaming and your thoughts that image streaming can be used as a therapeutic technique, further, that it increases one's awareness of their thoughts and dare I say it, self awareness?

This question is very interesting to me from your perspective because I recall yesterday reading a comment you made that resembled something like:

"Intelligence is not necessarily synonymous with self-awareness but self-awareness can be the creation of intelligence (if that happens to be the choice of the individual and their free will --> is what I inferred from it)".

So yes overall I must say that I'm very interested in understanding more regarding a potential relationship between self-awareness, free will and different forms of 'brain training'.

Thank you, Brandon

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:11:34 AM UTC+10, Brandon Woodson wrote:

--

[She will Fly because She is Born]

I appreciate your thoughts very much Brandon, thank you. 

Ha ha, my mental light dimmer is certainly still rotating around on this one (free will)! I must reserve more time on the matter actually, which moves me to now mention something else that I'd like to focus more deeply on first, the subject at hand as it pertains to the implementation of ontological categories in the thought streaming process.

Would you be at all obliged to give an example of each ontological category in relation to how they might be applied to a single VISUAL “thought stream", as well as how you would be mentally interacting with the VISUAL stimuli within the assigned ontological category? How about the other senses? Hmm... I wonder how this might work with feelings?

Firstly this might be from the perspective of ontological category to the manifestation of (a) certain (array of) stimuli, and then secondly, the spontaneous manifestation of stimuli to (the appropriate allocation of) ontological category, at least it pertains to the actions involved during the phase of streaming interruptive thought (impeding on the attempted external descriptions). I (inner all) mentioned (outer action) both (outer all (?)) sides (difference) to provoke (inner projection) clarity (difference (?)).

If you're able to accomplish this lofty task I will certainly respond again with my own thought streaming examples to hopefully provide others with more coins to put in their mental slot machine here to win greater understanding and most importantly, application.

I anticipate more questions from myself in terms of how to work all of these various (higher) seasons and (lower (subset)) weather patterns but overall I shall do my best to avoid unnecessary questions through my own deduction, which you yourself can correct if I happen to mention something inaccurate.

Otherwise, do you have a resource you would like to share pertaining to:

"Cybernetic Transposition is a remarkable tool to affect belief, and it works quite well. After having used it, image streaming is so much more tolerable." - Brandon

Take care

[She will Fly because She is Born]

* VISUAL “thought stream":

As it applies to a non man-made scene, for example, perhaps either the internally or externally derived representation of a robust nature (birds, trees, grasslands, rocks, water and so on) scene. :)

[Brandon Woodson]

"Would you be at all obliged to give an example of each ontological category in relation to how they might be applied to a single VISUAL “thought stream", as well as how you would be mentally interacting with the VISUAL stimuli within the assigned ontological category?"

Sure. The first visual that came to mind was that of an artist sculpting art, so let's use that.

The sculpting process will be a transformation of a piece of material - let's say, marble - from its unrefined state to a work of art.

We start by examining our marble slab (ALL). We know that, despite the present coarse and unrefined general appearance of the material (INNER ALL), beneath that exterior awaits a beautiful work of art, whose features we only need freeing from their marble prison. We consider for a moment this is only possible because what we see on even the smallest scale by the naked eye is, too, marble (OUTER ALL). They, quite tautologically, are one and the same (ALL).

Satisfied with the quality of our raw material, we envision the finished product, our mental template, so as to begin. And we begin to think about what (DIFFERENCE) the slab needs to undergo. (Lkie mnay porcseses, waht matetrs msot is percpetoin of bgenining and end; mdidle is soemtiems nelgilbe.) There are many ways from raw marble (INNER DIFFERENCE) to finished product (OUTER DIFFERENCE), and we can pick as long as we keep a constant idea of where we're going (DIFFERENCE).

With one final review of the plan, we commence (ACTION). Painstakingly, we etch (OUTER ACTION) the first details into our marble, which receives new shape (INNER ACTION) by our efforts.

What begins as a mere incision (OUTER DIVISION) gives way to distinguishable features, salient from (INNER DIVISION) what it contrasts. Many noticeable features (DIVISION) emerge as this continues.

We are careful not to add any excessive marks, for that could ruin the entire work. After all, it is through continuity (INNER CONNECTION) that the etchings (OUTER CONNECTION) have any visual effect. We gauge where each mark should be placed by gestalts (CONNECTION) of various scope.

We note how varied in depth some of the etchings are, how small etchings grow (MULTIPLICATION) through repeated strikes from our chisel. At once, each space is expanding w.r.t. smooth surfaces (INNER MULTIPLICATION), the contrasting material in which the empty space is nested, and w.r.t. itself (OUTER MULTIPLICATION). In other words, the marks grow both from (perspectives emphasizing) the marks and that which is marked simultaneously.

This business of heavy indentions, of light indentions, of depth, remind us of how fragile, how interdependent the small effects are. It's really a matter of numerosity (PROJECTION)!

We pause from our unfinished work and further ponder for a moment, "Where does the depth begin? Where does it end?". Following the newly placed contours with our eyes, we reasoning, "What is a gradient change in depth (PROJECTION) anywhere on a gradient scale *seems* to be either becoming (infinitesimally (INNER MULTIPLICATION) or infinitely (OUTER MULTIPLICATION) ) smaller or larger. No matter which we decide, smaller or larger, that change is paralleled by a steady change of some sort in the opposite direction as well; the pair of opposing PROJECTIONS must both become smaller (INNER PROJECTION) and larger (OUTER PROJECTION) as a necessary consequence of intelligence ( differentiation). If (with change) the stone is becoming deeper, then the "empty" space against which we compare it must become more shallow. If the stone, more shallow, then vice versa. We finally resolve that the depth begins at the extremities of both contrasts, and therefore projects in both directions simultaneously, even as we visually trace in one relatively straight direction.

(See diagram below: *)

We resume sculpting, deriving much pleasure from simply being in the moment. Our thoughts consume (INNER ENCOMPASSMENT) the nearly completed sculpture, and the sculpture is consumed by our attention (OUTER ENCOMPASSMENT).

At last, we inspect our work. We consider that it is neither deficient in any desirable attribute (INNER COMPLETION) nor superfluous in any of the same (OUTER COMPLETION), that it is perfect (COMPLETION), rational (COMPLETION), and beautiful (COMPLETION).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I understand the example requested was three-part: a.) how ontological categories are applied in a single visual thought stream of non-logical (or partially logical) objects; b.) how ontological categories apply to other human senses; and c.) how ontological categories apply to emotions.

I think the above is an example of a.). One can create an non-ordinary visual and attach significance. The whole (ALL) of that visual can then be subjected to logical operations, such as thought streaming. In fact, most visuals (e.g., letters of the alphabet or natural numbers) are non-ordinary visual objects which were at some point adopted as ordinary visuals. The same can be done for any visual imaginable since all logical systems defer on a most fundamental level to empiricism, as does empiricism to logical systems.

The content addressed by b.), I analyze only to the extent possible.

As I do with that by c.), which can be analyzed because emotions are emergent phenomena it seems. They are resultant from games and considerations, which can be, and I often do, analyze. Also, certain aspects of emotions such as somatic localization are also amenable to a much smaller degree to thought streaming.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Firstly this might be from the perspective of ontological category to the manifestation of (a) certain (array of) stimuli, and then secondly, the spontaneous manifestation of stimuli to (the appropriate allocation of) ontological category, at least it pertains to the actions involved during the phase of streaming interruptive thought (impeding on the attempted external descriptions). I (inner all) mentioned (outer action) both (outer all (?)) sides (difference) to provoke (inner projection) clarity (difference (?))."

This is pretty solid. I would only replace the last category with DIVISION (or some sort) since clarity often requires a transcendence of mere differentiation to overview of those differences as objects themselves from a global perspective.

Also, in practice, not writing, I would strive for a certain parity (i.e., INNER, OUTER, and ARCHETYPAL of any applied category juxtaposed rather than INNER or OUTER in isolation) which I will admit might be difficult (if not impossible) to fully capture with writing. It's easier to shift between the three levels in thought than convey in ordinary language mental shifts between the three levels for *everything* conveyed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you're able to accomplish this lofty task I will certainly respond again with my own thought streaming examples to hopefully provide others with more coins to put in their mental slot machine here to win greater understanding and most importantly, application."

I look forward to more examples. And thank you for providing them for intentions of interpersonal edification.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I anticipate more questions from myself in terms of how to work all of these various (higher) seasons and (lower (subset)) weather patterns but overall I shall do my best to avoid unnecessary questions through my own deduction, which you yourself can correct if I happen to mention something inaccurate."

No, I don't mind questions which clarify. You seem intelligent, so if you have a question, seemingly unnecessary or not, it is probably a good one.  Since my analysis of what needs explanation probably won't cover everything, questions point out blind spots.

And feel free to do the same for my inaccuracies. We aren't dealing with cute little I.Q. test puzzles, so I'm bound to make them.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Incidental to any quoted section, but owed discussion:

As I am sure you've already noticed, many concepts overlap greatly depending on what you wish to emphasize. The same negative portion of a sculpture etching (i.e., the area absent of marble) which was sometimes OUTER DIFFERENCE was also sometimes INNER CONNECTION between the positive portion of the very same etching. Any given visual representation is often represented pluralistically by several categories at once.

Actually, this entire endeavor could have focused on a single sentence or even a single word. But had we wrapped up this description in so little, the examples of the categories might have seemed too similar to clearly differentiate.

Of course, in personal thought streaming sessions, communicability beyond one's self isn't necessary nor so limiting.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Otherwise, do you have a resource you would like to share pertaining to:

"Cybernetic Transposition is a remarkable tool to affect belief, and it works quite well. After having used it, image streaming is so much more tolerable." - Brandon"

Here is a link to the e-book (I don't recall if I posted a link before):

http://www.eminimoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Money-Fast.pdf


Directed visualization for goal achievement is extremely useful, though far from a novelty:

http://expertenough.com/1898/visualization-works


Cybernetic Transposition takes some theory of this phenomenon, whose explanations range from fantastic to ordinary, and develops them into organized practice.



----------------------------------------------------------------------


(*) PROJECTION Diagram:

High marble (relative to)      |-------------------------------------------|  Low marble                          

Change by visual scan       ------------------------------------------->                                              

Increase in space from high to low; decrease in space from low to high 

With a change in direction of visual scan (reversed), decrease in space from low to high; increase from high to low.

Any projection has both, even one travelling in a single direction; hence the INNER & OUTER PROJECTION duality, or singularly, PROJECTION.

This is true for all purely abstract concepts represented isomorphically by PROJECTION (e.g., continuous numbers as pure noumena everywhere vs. numbers illustrated by a number line)

The questions to ask are "if [insert quality or quantity] is continuously increasing or decreasing, how do I know? What must be (comparatively) decreasing or increasing?"


I'm reminded of the quote:

"Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference." - Einstein


And speaking of which, and not the least bit germane, I "ran across" this page with "chicken crossing the road" commentary, which I found pretty humorous:

http://philosophy.eserver.org/chicken.txt



--Brandon

[Brandon Woodson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyWeksAo8VM


--Brandon

[She will Fly because She is Born]

If anyone would like to read about any more examples please hop on your internet bus and take a trip down to the following depot!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/788741021179122/

Don't forget to bring your ticket, which is your enthusiasm, curiosity and willingness to explore the unknown!

[Harry]

What can these "categories" be used for?

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 5:11:34 AM UTC+10, Brandon Woodson wrote:

[Brandon Woodson]

I'll answer in two ways.

Firstly, intrinsically, they are the source of all concepts, all thoughts, and all perceptions. They have virtually boundless utility apropos cognition because there is no cognition without them. If you can describe something, it will necessarily be described in terms of these categories.

Secondly, extrinsically, they can be used for almost anything with a linguistic character. I use "linguistic" very broadly here to describe anything which involves transmission, the act of sending something from one place to another (often with a particular objective). More narrowly, I use them to thought stream, which is simply a method of analysis which I believe has great import and practical benefit.

--Brandon

--

[Harry]

Are you give more examples of connection and completion? 

And this archetypal thingy, what's that?

What do you mean by spiritual or manifest? Is spiritual even a something?

[Brandon Woodson]

> "Are you give more examples of connection and completion?"

Connection:

Con (OUTER CONNECTION) + nec (INNER CONNECTION) + tion (OUTER CONNECTION)

ante meridiem, a.m. (OUTER CONNECTION) + meridiem, noon (INNER CONNECTION) + post meridiem, p.m. (OUTER CONNECTION)

Anything that serves as a bridge, nexus, center, or medium is usually INNER CONNECTION; whatever is connected via the instantiated INNER CONNECTION is OUTER CONNECTION.

Completion:

For a complete set of only integers 1 - 5:

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) would meet INNER COMPLETION, which can be thought of as satisfying a lower bound condition, but not OUTER COMPLETION; (1, 2, 3, 5) would meet OUTER COMPLETION, like satisfying an upper bound condition, but not INNER COMPLETION. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) would have INNER and OUTER COMPLETION.

The classic children's story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, carries this theme throughout and bears (pun unintended) additional tangible examples of COMPLETION.

> "And this archetypal thingy, what's that?"

None of the categories are observable (as objects) without duality. Where you'll find an INNER category, you'll always find a balancing OUTER category. The archetypal level represents the unitary aspect of two counterpoised categories, which cannot be observed directly, only through duality.

> "What do you mean by spiritual or manifest? Is spiritual even a something?"

It's irrelevant for application of the categories. But for a bit of history, these categories were presumably used as tools for religion. It's only expected, considering the categories' luminosity in early (and even modern) times of metaphysical benightedness and their incredible ubiquity, that they might be regarded as holy or sacred.

-----------------------------------------------

I should note: these examples are only approximations of the meanings of these categories, which cannot be perfectly delineated since none (as a singular INNER - OUTER - ARCHETYPAL set) can be described perfectly with language.

One not-so-technical reason is the meanings build progressively.

To clarify:

ALL both exists everywhere but cannot be perceived in unity since it both precedes all of the other categories (i.e., ALL, DIFFERENCE, and ACTION, etc. are actually (ALL) ALL, (ALL) DIFFERENCE, (ALL) ACTION, etc., respectively) and, alone, ALL has no perceivable qualities by which we can differentiate.

DIFFERENCE cannot be perceived without a common medium. So all DIFFERENCE would look something like (ALL) DIFFERENCE *and* utterly depend on ALL for intelligibility, as would all of the proceeding categories depend on DIFFERENCE.

That is:

DIFFERENCE on ALL

ACTION on ALL and DIFFERENCE.

DIVISION on ALL, DIFFERENCE, and ACTION.

And so on until (ALL) COMPLETION, which implies all 27 categories simultaneously.

The reverse sequence appears true as well (i.e., ALL -> COMPLETION inheres in each and every iteration of ALL)

Truly, the Infinite exists in everything.

I say this to convey that quick explanation in writing isn't enough for proper instruction; much direct experience in handling these categories is crucial to truly KNOWING them. This can only be achieved by doing.

--Brandon

[jotaro]

 brandon i dont know about other people, but when i read about the ontological categories i have no idea what you are talking about.

well i have very vague sense but. i am blind to the usefulness you see in this.

do you still image stream or you do just thought stream purely?

well thought stream could be refereed as upgraded image stream.

i mean why do you use those categories? whats the point? what do u get out of them as opposed you dont when you dont use them?

--Brandon

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

[Harry]

"Anything that serves as a bridge, nexus, center, or medium is usually INNER CONNECTION; whatever is connected via the instantiated INNER CONNECTION is OUTER CONNECTION"

Examples? Could you also use INNER and OUTER COMPLETION in the example?

"This can only be achieved by doing."

Can you do it and give an example then? I see the definitions but its like someone has been given a bunch of medical terms without proper details and has been asked to use them to label the diagram of a skeleton. It's tough going! 

By the way the medical mantra is "See One, Do One, Teach One".

I need to see more!

[Shoh]

Brandon

 

The second part of your comment in your last reply is very enlightening (fascinating) and made inter relationships (connection) between ontological categories very clear; it built inner connection (medium) with outer connections ( different ontological categories - objects). So far, only intra relationships within ontological category - inner/outer/archetypal connection made sense to me.     

I am very curious if you were able to develop inter relationship within ontological categories in your first thought ontological categories streaming session - was it clear to you from the very beginning? Or such kind of high level abstract relationships, did you acquire slowly gradually by learning and applying ontological categories?   

I am also very interested in your progress with ontological categories - do you think your logic/abstraction/differentiation/intelligence abilities improved and if they did so, to what extent from insignificant to vast improvement (Though, I knew reading from your previous posts, your intelligence is already very high)

My most intriguing questions among all - did you develop and incorporate new ontological categories into existing set or do you plan to do so in the future? Did you notice/discover any new thing pertaining to existing ontological categories and if you did could you share them with us too?

Thanks a lot Brandon for your all contribution in this group!

[Brandon Woodson]

Were you looking for more examples of INNER and OUTER CONNECTION or INNER and OUTER COMPLETION? (I noticed the question about COMPLETION followed a quoted section on CONNECTION) Better yet, would it help if I made some comparisons between CONNECTION and COMPLETION?

CONNECTION is more generic than COMPLETION and is implied in COMPLETION, as it is in MULTIPLICATION, PROJECTION, and ENCOMPASSMENT. CONNECTION also relates the more linear categories (i.e., DIFFERENCE, ACTION, DIVISION) before it to the more dimensional categories (MULTIPLICATION and on) after it.

More succinctly, COMPLETION has inherent numerical elements, continuity, and containment; CONNECTION can, but doesn't necessarily, involve any of those properties.

"Perfection", "accuracy", "greater than", "less than" are all closely related to COMPLETION.

Some additional COMPLETION examples are:

Proper inflation for tires on a vehicle is COMPLETION. Sufficiently high inflation could be considered INNER COMPLETION; sufficiently low inflation, OUTER COMPLETION.

The temperature range suitable for human life is another COMPLETION. Sufficiently high temperatures (INNER COMPLETION) and sufficiently low temperatures (OUTER COMPLETION) are needed.

I hope these help!

--Brandon

--

[Brandon Woodson]

Thank you. I'm glad it's helped clarify. It's ironic because a secret to using the categories effectively to differentiate anything else is first differentiating between the categories themselves. Intelligent study of the categories perhaps paves the way to more intelligent thinking.

IIRC, I recognized some pattern between the categories but didn't articulate what seemed to be there until I started using the categories regularly.

Yes, certain high-level patterns emerge for me continuously, many of which I don't write out or preserve in any communicable form - though I probably should. They seem readily available nevertheless, as routinely I'll find myself contemplating something, only to have the quick flashes of relevant thought-streaming memories appear in mind to help fill in gaps. This helps expedite my reasoning tremendously.

Along with efforts in filtering for the other types of errors, thought streaming has started to remove a veil from my thinking. For starters, I've began to notice regularly when I am relying on System 1 thinking, which in comparison seems almost thoughtless.

I don't have any plans to expand the set since (to my understanding) any additions would merely be permutations of the enumerated categories. Though, as implied above, I think there are many useful high-level patterns, which one would expect should increase in simplicity as they increase in generality and applicability.

--Brandon

[Hi]

Hi Brandon,

Would be great to get your contribution to my latest post to the thread titled: "What game(s) would people most like?"

Kindly,

Hi

[Hi]

I've just realised that CONNECTION might actually be the most important category as it concerns humans and their relationship with and or to experience.

It's so fascinating. I might have just completely and maybe even permanently shifted my psychological relationship with experience, I can't be sure yet, I'll have to see how it runs its course overtime.

CONNECTION is to self/experiential connection (i.e. what's the energy behind the interaction (between oneself and their human experience (whatever gap is to be found "here"))?). It's something I'm still exploring, something that seems like a bridge (CONNECTION) to really living nonetheless.

[Hi]

bump, just to remind the interest of everyone!

[Hi]

I find analysing all the different INNER/OUTER ENCOMPASSMENTS (among other) in this clip absolutely amazing.

Title: HD Tennis Women slow motion Dementieva Zvonareva Jankovic Azarenka Stosur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geg3ck3OT5Y

[The.Fourth.Deviation.]

Is anyone able to give a very concise explanation of what O.S. is, how it's conducted, and benefits?

[Hi]

The information provided is plentiful for the curious and resilient, including those that wish to be resilient in the development of these qualities..

Brandon didn't explain everything, but for me that was an important part of my own learning process. If it was all laid out for me to easily infer then I wouldn't have made the insights that I have, nor would I have respected the teaching lesson, intended or not, as much as I did and do. 

It's analogous to being stuck out in the wild and using a rough guide to get back home instead of a cognitively disabling GPS.

There's little to no lessons learned in the art of catching a bird when its wings are clipped, nor can any human truly appreciate flying if they haven't tried to build and or thoroughly learn what goes into flying not to mention the evolutions mankind has had to go through in order to reach this feat. 

So in short I think there's potential for a lot of character building in the undertaking of the endeavour and its long term training. 

Brain workshop is for sissies :P .

I might write up some more relatable guidelines but in light of the above I'm not quite yet sure how I will go about this.

[Brandon Woodson]

Hi, Fourth Deviation.

This is a write-up from March of this year, which is more concise:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/788741021179122?view=permalink&id=798243730228851

To all interested:

I agree my writing is sometimes highly discursive.

I'd be more than happy to further share my thoughts, or even collaborate on other efforts to make ontological/thought streaming more accessible to others, as time permits.

Best wishes!

--Brandon

[Hi]

Bump :)

[Hi]

Bump :) .

[Thomas]

Bump! :)

[dominic lambert]

Do you mean that different organisms have different levels of free will / "freedom"? And could you expand a bit more on what you mean by the word "compatibilist"?

[Arnold Sicily]

I believe what Brandon means by "compatibilist" is that determinism & free-will can be explored as 'compatible', i.e., free will & determinism are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between "free will" & "freedom". That is, the freedom to will something is not equivalent to the freedom to make a choice that reality adheres to. The difference is will vs. effect. What we will to happen is not always what happens.

Nonetheless, everything has free will.
The degree to which a thing has 'freedom' depends on their ability to solve problems that are obstacles to their choices having effect on reality.
In some ways, free will can act as a restriction on freedom if one wills the wrong decision - one that runs into problems & does not solve them.

Free will & freedom only work harmoniously to the degree one is capable of surpassing obstacles to freedom.

As for ontological categories, by sufficiently differentiating them, one correspondingly differentiates certain building blocks of language. In effect, language is further understood, and the individual is better able to articulate, understand & apply language. With greater effect of language, one may find it easier to understand 'self' in 'self-awareness' or otherwise to develop a more complex 'illusion of self'.

[Arnold Sicily]

Nonetheless, everything has free will
My apologies, this is not quite right. All *life* has free will, which cannot be divided into different levels.

[dominic lambert]

Does this mean that free will is useless without freedom?

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/brain-training/gh5xgRRwVtc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/8a5f234f-4b6e-4cb1-af42-6a8cc3f1c095n%40googlegroups.com.

[dominic lambert]

Hence, compatibilism (determinism + free will coexisting) says that free will exists, but that free will has basically no effect?

[Arnold Sicily]

Brandon may disagree with my thoughts on this matter, including the last post. I am confident that is what he meant by 'compatibilist', but my other thoughts are largely based on similar inspirations to Brandon's - you can read his previous posts.

To answer your question, will can have various uses. For example, consider that responsibility is the willingness to admit cause / that you are the cause of something.

[Arnold Sicily]

Relational Frame Theory was initially an attempt to extend stimulus equivalence to relations other than equivalence.
Stimulus equivalence is exhibited when you have two symbols e.g. A, B, a psychological stimuli X, and a directly trained equivalence relation ('=' or 'same as') between A-X & between B-X. With stimulus equivalence, from the A-X & B-X equivalences, one is able to derive A-B is equivalent.
For example, the symbol 'cat' trained to be equivalent to psychological stimulus - a cat.
Another symbol is the sound *cat*, trained to be equivalent to psychological stimulus - a cat.
Stimulus equivalence is where after these trainings, the individual can says that the symbol for cat ('cat') & the sound for cat (*cat*) are equivalent.

Humans are the only animals that have substantially exhibited stimulus equivalence - i.e. the indirect training of a symbolic relation. Whilst other animals may outperform young infants in certain tests of cognition, humans greatly outperform all other animals with stimulus equivalence. In result, many began to postulate that stimulus equivalence was a necessary (and some would say sufficient) building block of language. Others would argue that stimulus equivalence was a result of language, rather than a building block. RFT however said that language was something that could be learnt by training the ability to derive these indirect symbolic relations - not to say other animals necessarily can learn it. The extension with RFT was introducing other indirectly trained symbolic relations, e.g. comparison (more/less than), coordination (same/opposite), difference, etc. 
Ultimately, the evidence for RFT is in it's results - improved cognition as a result of training this ability to indirectly form these indirect symbolic relations. RFT is also very much in it's early days, and there are many questions it has yet to answer. You can read more here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jeab.733

To create a relational frame, there are a few characteristics required:
-Bidirectional (A --> B; B --> A)
-Combination (A --> B; B --> C; therefore, A --> C)
-Transformation of Stimuli: derivations of relations between symbols must transfer to the stimuli to which the symbols relate to

The ontological categories seem to have bidirectionality between Inner & Outer.
Then, they also seem to have some sort of combination, such as between analytic & synthetic. However, I think this idea needs further articulation & development.
The transformation of stimuli requires a deeper understanding of combination.

Now, I may be assuming that the categories are derivable. This assumption is based on the observation that the ontological categories seem to form a basis of language. We also need to differentiate language & intelligence. For example, there is the fact humans are uniquely intelligent at language, but not necessarily other tests of intelligence (examples include measures of complexity, or measures of short-term memory). I hope Brandon could come back to illuminate us as to his views on the matter.

[Arnold Sicily]

Regarding the hierarchical recursive reflectivity of the ontological categories, I can try to connect them as such:
All = identity
the identification of all requires Difference
the identification of difference & all requires Division

the identification of division requires Action

the identification of action requires Connection = duality

the identification of duality requires Multiplication
the identification of multiplication requires Projection = space

the identification of space requires Encompassment

the identification of encompassment requires Completion = All.

I'm sure that one could probably create another explanation different to mine, but potentially of similar or greater validity. 

[Samuel Kusa]

hey bro could you please explain further

[Arnold Sicily]

All = " "
(All = " ") = difference to all

((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division

(((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action

((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection
(((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity

((((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity) = Projection (to multiply is to project a space into which one is multiplying)

(((((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity) = Projection) = Encompassment (placing multiplicity in a space requires encompassment)

((((((((All = " ") = difference to all) = Division) = Action) = Connection) = Multiplicity) = Projection) = Encompassment) = Completion (encompassing encompassment is completion)

It might be easier to understand if you draw a picture that naturally begins with difference. The idea is that each concept requires the next to define it, like the evolution of language in CTMU. To define nothing you need something, which forms difference. To define difference you need division. To define division you need action, etc. ...

To me, these are just interesting ideas. I don't know currently know if there is genuinely any significance to them.

[dominic lambert]

Why do you need action to define division?

[BM XT]

Anyone still practicing? Share your experience, please.

четверг, 1 сентября 2022 г. в 02:36:05 UTC+5, dominic lambert:

[Michael]

This is a provocative addition, an extra 9, bringing the total to 36 categories; that for me when I do employ them become a complete gestalt I compress into one projective relational network when used. Rther than individually employed one after the other; as I've shared before, there's an emphasis on the principle of compression there for advancing the mind, both its relational intuition and raw horse power.

Before beginning, just extending appreciation for what we can maybe view as at least in part, an evolving framework moving forward. This fourth set represents the meta-synthetic layer, where the internal and external forms converge into what I've so far theorized as "self-referential transcendences", something which I've bridged with my progression towards a unifying model for what I've termed so far as "Integrative Consciousness Streaming" in another thread that I'll be re-sharing November 1st anyhow. I thought I'd share this set early though as (1) I know it'll expand the minds of others to be more readily open to expand things in ways I may not think of between now and November 1st (2) its not absolutely clear whether I will be including the full 36 categories or some variation of them in the final model of Integrative Consciousness Streaming, among other, come November 1st, therefore irrespectively, I hope its additive to discussion for this thread. 

Theoretically, the Transcendent Forms are justified as the necessary culmination of the system's duality, grounded in self-organization principles from dynamical systems theory and phenomenological ontology. In relational frame theory, derived relations require meta-frames for generalization; here, transcendents synthesize oppositions (e.g., internal reception and external projection into infinite self-extension), enabling self-reference that mirrors consciousness's recursive nature. Meru Foundation's gesture models support this, portraying letters as self-referential loops (toroidal dynamics), validating transcendents as bridges between physics and mind. By including it, Ontological closure just feels more complete given the arches of meta-self awareness feel more self-contained; and there's an intuition that's grasped in that closure with them.

Feedback is invaluable and looking to contribute upon return where I can, let's collaborate to test and iterate further!

Detailing at a preliminary level 4 levels of understanding given they're being introduced for the first time. Lastly, as I don't have the patience to teeth out 4 levels myself, I got Grok 4 to hash that out for me ha. Best wishes, for me the understandings brought closure to a world I previously wasn't able to articulate but now can, that's just me personally and again, at the very least I hope there's some aha moments for the reader. Any issues or improvements, please open up between now and November 1st and I'll be sure to get back to anyone then. 

Cheers yal, rock out Brandon!

1. Transcendent All (Self-Referential Unity)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent All, or Self-Referential Unity, is like a circle that draws itself, where everything points back to its own center in a never-ending loop. Imagine a snake biting its own tail, Transcendent All is that self-connection, making unity that knows itself. For basic understanding, picture a mirror reflecting a mirror, creating endless images of the same thing; it's the idea that wholeness looks at itself and says, "I am me." Transcendent All brings all parts into a loop where inside and outside meet in self-awareness. It's like hugging yourself and feeling complete. In everyday life, Transcendent All is when you think about your thoughts, like "I know I am thinking." It's gentle, not confusing, start with feeling your breath looping in and out. Practice by drawing a circle and putting a dot in the center, saying, "This is Transcendent All, unity referring to itself." Slowly trace the circle. Transcendent All is peaceful, like a quiet pond reflecting the sky. If you feel scattered, remember the loop brings back. Repeat: "Transcendent All is self-unity loop." Feel it by closing eyes and sensing body as one. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent All as the self-knowing whole. It's the echo that hears itself. Without it, unity stays flat, no self. So, take time, maybe sit and feel your heartbeat looping life. It's the ring that holds its own shape. 

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent All, termed Self-Referential Unity, represents the meta-synthesis of unity, where internal collection and external copy converge into a self-aware loop. As a beginner, think of Transcendent All as the unity that reflects on itself, like a thought thinking about thinking. It emphasizes self-reference beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing a loop enclosing All's forms, e.g., "wholeness knowing its wholeness." This category builds meta-cohesion, the basis for transcendent relations. Beginners should use drawings: Sketch a loop with arrows pointing inward. Transcendent All is not simple unity but self-conscious synthesis. It aligns with basic recursion, where Transcendent All is a self-call function. Exercises: Reflect on unity in mirrors. This fosters intuition for meta-unity. 

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent All functions as the meta-unifier in relational ontology, synthesizing dualities into self-referential structures. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent All as a relational frame for meta-coordination, deriving self-sameness across levels. Model mathematically as the fixed-point operator in functions, Transcendent All(f) = fix(f) where f self-references. Practice by applying Transcendent All to conceptual meta-pairs, e.g., "dualities unified in self-loop." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent All with Transcendent Difference, to understand self-tension-resolution. Use loop diagrams: Represent Transcendent All as self-pointing arrows. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent All enabling meta-stability in probabilistic spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-patterns.

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent All embodies the self-referential pleroma in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a closure functor that synthesizes dualities into compact self-loops, ensuring self-connectedness in topological spaces. In dynamical systems, Transcendent All corresponds to a global attractor, formalized as Transcendent All(X) = attr(X) where attr is the omega-limit set self-referring. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent All as the identity endofunctor in category theory, self-mapping categories to themselves. Practice by simulating Transcendent All in tensor networks, where Transcendent All = T ⊗ I (transcendent tensor), self-unifying subspaces. Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent All's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal collection and external copy into toroidal self-reference via loop geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent All induces self-probabilistic unity for adaptive self-horizons. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent All's invariance under self-equivalences, proving its utility in self-topology for inductive self-synthesis. Transcendent All thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute self-unity. 

2. Transcendent Difference (Entangled Boundary)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Difference, or Entangled Boundary, is like a fence that connects while separating, tangled in a way that boundaries link things. Imagine two gardens with a shared hedge, Transcendent Difference is the boundary that entangles them, different but joined. For basic understanding, picture strings knotted together; they are separate but entangled, creating a boundary that's connected. Transcendent Difference makes differences that twist together, like vines on a wall. It's the idea that separation can be linked. In everyday life, Transcendent Difference is friends arguing but staying close, boundaries entangled. It's gentle, not sharp, think of a river bank where water and land meet tangled with roots. Practice by tying two strings loosely and saying, "This is Transcendent Difference, entangled boundary." Slowly feel the knot. Transcendent Difference is interesting, like puzzles fitting with edges. If you feel divided, remember entanglement joins. Repeat: "Transcendent Difference is linked boundary." Feel it by holding hands with space between. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent Difference as the twisted divide. It's the quantum edge where things touch while apart. Without it, differences stay loose. So, take time, maybe weave fingers and see the boundary. It's the web connecting spiders. 

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Difference, termed Entangled Boundary, represents the meta-synthesis of distinction, where internal inside and external outside converge into a linked edge. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Difference as the boundary that connects opposites, like a door separating rooms but allowing passage. It emphasizes entangled separation beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing a knot binding differences, e.g., "contrasts entangled in unity." This category builds meta-discernment, the basis for transcendent contrasts. Beginners should use strings: Tie to entangle boundaries. Transcendent Difference is not simple divide but quantum link. It aligns with basic entanglement, where Transcendent Difference is shared state. Exercises: Link differing objects. This fosters intuition for meta-boundaries.

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Difference functions as the meta-distinguisher in relational ontology, entangling dualities into linked boundaries. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Difference as a relational frame for meta-opposition, deriving entangled distinctions across levels. Model mathematically as the boundary operator in topology, Transcendent Difference(X) = ∂X entangled. Practice by applying Transcendent Difference to conceptual meta-pairs, e.g., "dualities entangled in edge." This level involves meta-tensions, like Transcendent Difference with Transcendent All, to understand meta-unified contrast. Use boundary diagrams: Represent Transcendent Difference as tangled lines. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Difference enabling meta-variance in probabilistic spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-contrasts. 

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Difference embodies the entangled boundary generator in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-separator that links distinctions in metric spaces, ensuring meta-separability via entanglement. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Difference corresponds to a meta-repeller, formalized as Transcendent Difference(X) = ∂X with entangled flows. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Difference as the meta-opposite functor in category theory, meta-reversing morphisms. Practice by simulating Transcendent Difference in tensor networks, where Transcendent Difference = D ⊗ I (transcendent differentiation tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Difference's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal withinness and external withoutness into quantum edge via entangled geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Difference induces meta-stochastic boundaries for adaptive meta-horizons. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Difference's invariance under meta-homeomorphisms, proving its utility in meta-topology for inductive meta-distinction. Transcendent Difference thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-boundary. 

3. Transcendent Action (Self-Propelling Kinesis)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Action, or Self-Propelling Kinesis, is like a ball that rolls by itself, moving without push. Imagine a windmill turning on its own energy, Transcendent Action is the self-move. For basic understanding, picture your legs walking without thinking; it's action propelling itself. Transcendent Action makes movement that keeps going from within. It's the idea that doing can do itself. In everyday life, Transcendent Action is a river flowing forever, self-propelling. It's gentle, not forced, think of a heart beating on its own. Practice by imagining a wheel spinning alone and saying, "This is Transcendent Action, self-propelling." Slowly mimic spin. Transcendent Action is flowing, like endless dance. If you feel stopped, remember self-kinesis starts. Repeat: "Transcendent Action is self-move." Feel it by swaying. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent Action as the inside-out push. It's the perpetual motion toy. Without it, action needs external help. So, take time, maybe rock gently to feel self-propelling. It's the wave that waves itself. 

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Action, termed Self-Propelling Kinesis, represents the meta-synthesis of dynamics, where internal self-action and external outward action converge into self-driven motion. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Action as the motion that sustains itself, like a perpetual pendulum. It emphasizes self-propulsion beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-movement, e.g., "energy propelling itself." This category builds meta-kinetics, the basis for transcendent flows. Beginners should use swings: Push once for self-continuation. Transcendent Action is not directed but self-vectorial. It aligns with basic autonomy, where Transcendent Action is self-loop function. Exercises: Imagine self-sustaining actions. This fosters intuition for meta-dynamics.

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Action functions as the meta-kinetic in relational ontology, self-propelling dualities into ongoing becoming. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Action as a relational frame for meta-sequencing, deriving self-motions across levels. Model mathematically as the self-derivative in vector fields, Transcendent Action(v) = dv/dt self. Practice by applying Transcendent Action to conceptual meta-flows, e.g., "transformation self-propelling." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent Action with Transcendent Difference, to understand self-contrasted motion. Use meta-flow charts: Represent Transcendent Action as self-looped arrows. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Action enabling meta-causality in temporal spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-dynamics.

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Action embodies the self-propelling dynamo in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-vector field that induces self-flows in phase spaces, ensuring self-directed evolution. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Action corresponds to a meta-Hamiltonian, formalized as Transcendent Action(X) = {X, H_meta} with meta-Poisson bracket. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Action as the meta-pushout in category theory, self-extending objects meta-morphically. Practice by simulating Transcendent Action in tensor networks, where Transcendent Action = A ⊗ I (transcendent action tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Action's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal self-action and external outward into vectorial becoming via meta-vectorial geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Action induces meta-stochastic propulsion for adaptive meta-horizons. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Action's conservation under meta-symplectics, proving its utility in meta-energy for inductive meta-kinetics. Transcendent Action thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-becoming.

4. Transcendent Division (Meta-Deconstruction)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Division, or Meta-Deconstruction, is like breaking a thing into parts that know they are broken, in a higher way. Imagine a puzzle taken apart but the pieces remember the picture, Transcendent Division is that smart break. For basic understanding, picture a cake cut into slices where each slice thinks about the whole cake; it's division that thinks about itself. Transcendent Division makes splits that are deep and aware. It's the idea that breaking can be wise. In everyday life, Transcendent Division is analyzing a story by parts but seeing how they fit. It's gentle, not harsh, think of leaves falling from a tree, deconstructing but natural. Practice by breaking a stick and imagining parts talking, saying, "This is Transcendent Division." Slowly separate. Transcendent Division is thoughtful, like questions in mind. If you feel whole, remember deconstruction shows inside. Repeat: "Transcendent Division is smart break." Feel it by unfolding paper. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent Division as the thinking split. It's the river forking wisely. Without it, division is dumb. So, take time, maybe divide clay and see parts. It's the mind taking ideas apart.

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Division, termed Meta-Deconstruction, represents the meta-synthesis of segmentation, where internal subtraction and external pluralization converge into aware isolation. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Division as the break that reflects on breaking, like dissecting a fruit and noting parts. It emphasizes bifurcational awareness beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-aware splits, e.g., "whole deconstructed meta-wise." This category builds meta-granularity, the basis for transcendent parts. Beginners should use puzzles: Take apart with reflection. Transcendent Division is not simple divide but meta-bifurcation. It aligns with basic analysis, where Transcendent Division is reflective split. Exercises: Deconstruct objects mentally. This fosters intuition for meta-deconstruction. 

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Division functions as the meta-segmenter in relational ontology, deconstructing dualities into aware isolations. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Division as a relational frame for meta-isolation, deriving self-parts from self-wholes meta-wise. Model mathematically as the meta-division in vectors, Transcendent Division(v, n) = v / n meta. Practice by applying Transcendent Division to conceptual meta-wholes, e.g., "system meta-deconstructed into traits." This level involves meta-tensions, like Transcendent Division with Transcendent All. Use meta-trees: Represent Transcendent Division as meta-branching. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Division enabling meta-classification in probabilistic spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-segmentation. 

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Division embodies the meta-deconstructive scalpel in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-partitioning operator that bifurcates structures in topological spaces, ensuring meta-granularity via aware isolation. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Division corresponds to a meta-bifurcation, formalized as Transcendent Division(X) = X1 ∪ X2 meta with X1 ∩ X2 = ∅ meta. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Division as the meta-pullback in category theory, meta-retracting objects. Practice by simulating Transcendent Division in tensor networks, where Transcendent Division = D ⊗ I (transcendent division tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Division's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal isolation and external fractionation into bifurcational isolation via meta-bifurcational geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Division induces meta-stochastic isolation for adaptive meta-branching. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Division's preservation under meta-disjoint unions, proving its utility in meta-set-theoretic for inductive meta-granularity. Transcendent Division thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-isolation.

5. Transcendent Connection (Nodal Self-Link)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Connection, or Nodal Self-Link, is like a knot that ties itself, linking in a higher way. Imagine a shoelace knotting alone, Transcendent Connection is the self-tie. For basic understanding, picture roots linking under ground, self-connecting. Transcendent Connection makes links that know they are linked. It's the idea that connection can connect to itself. In everyday life, Transcendent Connection is a hug where arms link self. It's gentle, not loose, think of a chain linking its own ends. Practice by knotting string and saying, "This is Transcendent Connection, self-link." Slowly pull tight. Transcendent Connection is strong, like unbreakable bonds. If you feel alone, remember self-link joins. Repeat: "Transcendent Connection is self-knot." Feel it by crossing arms. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent Connection as the inside-out tie. It's the loop that holds itself. Without it, connections stay straight. So, take time, maybe loop fingers and see the node. It's the web center linking back.

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Connection, termed Nodal Self-Link, represents the meta-synthesis of linkage, where internal hub and external possession converge into self-bound knot. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Connection as the link that binds itself, like a knot in rope. It emphasizes self-interdependence beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-links, e.g., "parts linked in self-knot." This category builds meta-networks, the basis for transcendent webs. Beginners should use strings: Knot to self-link. Transcendent Connection is not simple bind but nodal self. It aligns with basic knots, where Transcendent Connection is self-loop. Exercises: Tie self-links. This fosters intuition for meta-links. 

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Connection functions as the meta-integrator in relational ontology, self-linking dualities into interdependent nodes. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Connection as a relational frame for meta-linkage, deriving self-nets across levels. Model mathematically as the meta-addition in graphs, Transcendent Connection(G) = G + e meta self. Practice by applying Transcendent Connection to conceptual meta-pairs, e.g., "dualities self-linked in node." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent Connection with Transcendent Difference, to understand self-bridged contrast. Use meta-graphs: Represent Transcendent Connection as self-nodes. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Connection enabling meta-causality in probabilistic spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-integration. 

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Connection embodies the nodal self-link in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-linking operator that forges self-dependencies in graph spaces, ensuring meta-connectivity via nodes. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Connection corresponds to a meta-coupling, formalized as Transcendent Connection(X, Y) = X ∪ Y meta with edge set E meta self. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Connection as the meta-product in category theory, meta-combining objects self-morphically. Practice by simulating Transcendent Connection in tensor networks, where Transcendent Connection = C ⊗ I (transcendent connection tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Connection's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal hub and external possession into knot of interdependence via meta-knot geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Connection induces meta-stochastic linkage for adaptive meta-networks. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Connection's preservation under meta-unions, proving its utility in meta-connectivity for inductive meta-binding. Transcendent Connection thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-interdependence. 


6. Transcendent Multiplication (Fractal Self-Replication)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Multiplication, or Fractal Self-Replication, is like a pattern that copies itself in smaller ways, growing by repeating. Imagine a snowflake with same shape big and small, Transcendent Multiplication is the self-copy in fractals. For basic understanding, picture a tree branch that looks like the whole tree; it's replication that knows itself. Transcendent Multiplication makes more by copying its own pattern. It's the idea that growth can grow from itself. In everyday life, Transcendent Multiplication is an echo repeating softer, self-replicating. It's gentle, not endless, think of ripples in water copying the first splash. Practice by drawing a big circle, then smaller inside like it, saying, "This is Transcendent Multiplication." Slowly add more. Transcendent Multiplication is beautiful, like nature's designs. If you feel static, remember self-replication adds layers. Repeat: "Transcendent Multiplication is self-pattern copy." Feel it by echoing voice. This level is basic, so no hurry,  understand Transcendent Multiplication as the repeating self. It's the fern leaf mirroring the plant. Without it, multiplication stays flat. So, take time, maybe copy a shape smaller. It's the DNA making cells.

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Multiplication, termed Fractal Self-Replication, represents the meta-synthesis of growth, where internal sustain and external expansion converge into iterative self-copy. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Multiplication as the pattern that repeats itself, like a fern's self-similar leaves. It emphasizes self-scaling beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-repeats, e.g., "form replicating in smaller self." This category builds meta-proliferation, the basis for transcendent patterns. Beginners should use copies: Draw repeating shapes. Transcendent Multiplication is not simple multiply but fractal self. It aligns with basic fractals, where Transcendent Multiplication is self-iteration. Exercises: Replicate patterns. This fosters intuition for meta-growth. 

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Multiplication functions as the meta-proliferator in relational ontology, self-replicating dualities into iterative structures. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Multiplication as a relational frame for meta-amplification, deriving self-multiples from self-singles meta-wise. Model mathematically as the meta-multiplication in vectors, Transcendent Multiplication(v) = v * s meta. Practice by applying Transcendent Multiplication to conceptual meta-sets, e.g., "trait self-replicated in fractal self." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent Multiplication with Transcendent Division, to understand balanced meta-growth. Use meta-fractals: Represent Transcendent Multiplication as self-branches. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Multiplication enabling meta-expansion in probabilistic spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-scaling. 
   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Multiplication embodies the fractal self-replicator in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-scaling operator that self-iterates structures in self-similar spaces, ensuring meta-iterative growth and fractal dimension. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Multiplication corresponds to a meta-replication map, formalized as Transcendent Multiplication(X) = X ⊕ X meta (meta direct sum). At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Multiplication as the meta-coproduct in category theory, meta-duplicating objects iteratively. Practice by simulating Transcendent Multiplication in tensor networks, where Transcendent Multiplication = M ⊗ I (transcendent multiplication tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Multiplication's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal support and external unfold into iterative reinforcement via meta-iterative geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Multiplication induces meta-stochastic replication for adaptive meta-growth. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Multiplication's preservation under meta-homomorphisms, proving its utility in meta-scaling for inductive meta-proliferation. Transcendent Multiplication thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-replication.

7. Transcendent Projection (Infinite Self-Extension)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Projection, or Infinite Self-Extension, is like a ray of light that extends from itself forever. Imagine a vine growing longer by its own power, Transcendent Projection is the self-stretch to infinity. For basic understanding, picture your arm reaching out and imagining it going endless; it's extension that extends itself. Transcendent Projection makes reach that knows no end from within. It's the idea that forward can go on by itself. In everyday life, Transcendent Projection is a thought leading to more thoughts, self-extending. It's gentle, not forced, think of a river extending its own flow. Practice by stretching arm and imagining endless, saying, "This is Transcendent Projection." Slowly extend fingers. Transcendent Projection is vast, like endless sky. If you feel short, remember self-extension lengthens. Repeat: "Transcendent Projection is self-forever reach." Feel it by gazing far. This level is basic, so no hurry. understand Transcendent Projection as the inside-out endless. It's the horizon that moves with you. Without it, projection stops. So, take time, maybe point to stars and feel extension. It's the beam from a flashlight going on. 

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Projection, termed Infinite Self-Extension, represents the meta-synthesis of extension, where internal reception and external infinity converge into self-driven ray. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Projection as the reach that sustains itself, like an endless echo. It emphasizes self-divergence beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-extensions, e.g., "thought extending infinitely self." This category builds meta-direction, the basis for transcendent predictions. Beginners should use lines: Draw extending rays. Transcendent Projection is not directed but self-vectorial. It aligns with basic infinity, where Transcendent Projection is self-limitless function. Exercises: Imagine infinite self-reaches. This fosters intuition for meta-extensions. 

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Projection functions as the meta-anticipator in relational ontology, self-extending dualities into infinite becoming. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Projection as a relational frame for meta-directionality, deriving self-extensions across levels. Model mathematically as the meta-projection in vectors, Transcendent Projection(v, d) = v · d meta. Practice by applying Transcendent Projection to conceptual meta-timelines, e.g., "event self-extended infinitely." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent Projection with Transcendent Action, to understand directed meta-motion. Use meta-vectors: Represent Transcendent Projection as infinite arrows. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Projection enabling meta-forecasting in temporal spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-extension. 

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Projection embodies the infinite self-vector in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-projection operator that self-diverges structures in Hilbert spaces, ensuring meta-directional continuity. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Projection corresponds to a meta-flow map, formalized as Transcendent Projection(X, t) = Φ_t(X) meta, inducing meta-trajectories. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Projection as the meta-pushforward in category theory, meta-mapping objects. Practice by simulating Transcendent Projection in tensor networks, where Transcendent Projection = P ⊗ I (transcendent projection tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Projection's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal reception and external projection into ray of reception-projection via meta-ray geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Projection induces meta-stochastic extension for adaptive meta-forecasting. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Projection's preservation under meta-diffeomorphisms, proving its utility in meta-mapping for inductive meta-directionality. Transcendent Projection thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-extension.

8. Transcendent Encompassment (Conspansive Self-Containment)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Encompassment, or Conspansive Self-Containment, is like a bubble that grows and shrinks while holding itself. Imagine a lung breathing in and out, containing air in a way that changes, Transcendent Encompassment is the self-hold that expands and contracts. For basic understanding, picture a balloon that puffs and deflates but stays whole; it's containment that contains its own change. Transcendent Encompassment makes boundaries that breathe. It's the idea that holding can hold its own change. In everyday life, Transcendent Encompassment is a heart containing blood while beating. It's gentle, not rigid, think of waves containing water while moving. Practice by breathing deeply and feeling chest hold, saying, "This is Transcendent Encompassment." Slowly expand and contract. Transcendent Encompassment is flexible, like rubber band. If you feel rigid, remember conspansive flows. Repeat: "Transcendent Encompassment is self-breathing hold." Feel it by cupping water. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent Encompassment as the changing inside-out hold. It's the universe expanding itself. Without it, containment stays fixed. So, take time, maybe hug and release self. It's the breath in yoga. 

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Encompassment, termed Conspansive Self-Containment, represents the meta-synthesis of containment, where internal engulf and external puff converge into dynamic self-bound. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Encompassment as the boundary that adjusts itself, like a cell membrane. It emphasizes self-inclusive change beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-containments, e.g., "space self-encompassing dynamically." This category builds meta-bounding, the basis for transcendent inclusions. Beginners should use breaths: Inhale/exhale as conspansion. Transcendent Encompassment is not static but dynamic self. It aligns with basic expansion-contraction, where Transcendent Encompassment is self-adjust function. Exercises: Imagine dynamic holdings. This fosters intuition for meta-bounds.

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Encompassment functions as the meta-container in relational ontology, self-containing dualities into dynamic structures. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Encompassment as a relational frame for meta-nesting, deriving self-enclosures across levels. Model mathematically as the meta-inclusion in sets, Transcendent Encompassment(A, B) = A ⊆ B meta. Practice by applying Transcendent Encompassment to conceptual meta-groups, e.g., "categories self-contained conspansively." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent Encompassment with Transcendent Division, to understand bounded meta-segmentation. Use meta-Venn: Represent Transcendent Encompassment as dynamic circles. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Encompassment enabling meta-classification in probabilistic spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-bounding.

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Encompassment embodies the conspansive self-container in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-embedding operator that dynamically bounds structures in topological spaces, ensuring meta-compactness via expansion-contraction. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Encompassment corresponds to a meta-basin map, formalized as Transcendent Encompassment(X) = basin(X) meta containing meta-attractors. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Encompassment as the meta-embedding in category theory, meta-immersing objects into meta-superspaces. Practice by simulating Transcendent Encompassment in tensor networks, where Transcendent Encompassment = E ⊗ I (transcendent encompassment tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Encompassment's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal engulf and external expand into absorbing-emitting sphere via meta-sphere geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Encompassment induces meta-stochastic conspansion for adaptive meta-bounding. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Encompassment's preservation under meta-continuous maps, proving its utility in meta-topology for inductive meta-inclusion. Transcendent Encompassment thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-containment. 

9. Transcendent Completion (Affirmative Self-Resolution)

   - Foundational Level: Transcendent Completion, or Affirmative Self-Resolution, is like a story ending happily, resolving itself well. Imagine a puzzle completing and saying "yes", Transcendent Completion is the self-done that feels right. For basic understanding, picture a door closing gently with a click; it's resolution that affirms itself. Transcendent Completion makes endings that know they are good. It's the idea that finish can finish positively. In everyday life, Transcendent Completion is a day ending with a goodnight kiss, self-resolving. It's gentle, not sad, think of sun setting beautifully. Practice by finishing a drawing and nodding yes, saying, "This is Transcendent Completion." Slowly admire. Transcendent Completion is positive, like a smile at end. If you feel open-ended, remember affirmative close. Repeat: "Transcendent Completion is good self-end." Feel it by clasping hands. This level is basic, so no hurry, understand Transcendent Completion as the yes finish. It's the bow on a gift. Without it, endings hang. So, take time, maybe tie a ribbon and feel resolution. It's the peace after play. 

   - Beginner Level: Transcendent Completion, termed Affirmative Self-Resolution, represents the meta-synthesis of resolution, where internal upright and external sturdy converge into self-affirming close. As a beginner, think of Transcendent Completion as the end that approves itself, like a task done with satisfaction. It emphasizes self-fulfillment beyond duality, essential for meta-relational frames. Practice by visualizing self-resolutions, e.g., "cycle resolving affirmatively." This category builds meta-closure, the basis for transcendent cycles. Beginners should use nods: Affirm completions. Transcendent Completion is not simple end but affirmative self. It aligns with basic affirmation, where Transcendent Completion is self-yes function. Exercises: End with positives. This fosters intuition for meta-closures. 

   - Intermediate Level: Transcendent Completion functions as the meta-resolver in relational ontology, self-resolving dualities into affirmative structures. At an intermediate level, recognize Transcendent Completion as a relational frame for meta-closure, deriving self-resolutions across levels. Model mathematically as the meta-integral in functions, Transcendent Completion(f) = ∫f dx meta. Practice by applying Transcendent Completion to conceptual meta-loops, e.g., "process to affirmative self-outcome." This level involves meta-interactions, like Transcendent Completion with Transcendent Action, to understand resolved meta-motion. Use meta-loops: Represent Transcendent Completion as affirming circles. Intermediate learners should derive principles, such as Transcendent Completion enabling meta-stability in temporal spaces. This builds toward inductive meta-resolution.

   - Advanced Level: Transcendent Completion embodies the affirmative self-resolver in advanced ontological modeling, operating as a meta-closure operator that consummates meta-cycles in algebraic structures, ensuring meta-idempotence. In dynamical systems, Transcendent Completion corresponds to a meta-fixed-point, formalized as Transcendent Completion(X) = fix(f(X)) meta. At this level, conceptualize Transcendent Completion as the meta-terminal in category theory, meta-mapping to meta-end objects. Practice by simulating Transcendent Completion in tensor networks, where Transcendent Completion = C ⊗ I (transcendent completion tensor). Advanced analysis reveals Transcendent Completion's role in meta-resolution, e.g., synthesizing internal virtuous and external resilient into balanced loop closure via meta-loop geometry (Meru-inspired self-organization). This facilitates higher-dimensional extrapolation, e.g., in 6D manifolds, Transcendent Completion induces meta-stochastic resolution for adaptive meta-closure. Masters should derive theorems, such as Transcendent Completion's preservation under meta-limits, proving its utility in meta-algebra for inductive meta-consummation. Transcendent Completion thus horizons meta-transcendence, essential for absolute meta-resolution. 

[Michael]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- repost -- 

Better for the epic buildup? We'll let the StarTrek future decide.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 of directly above) 9 New Categories bringing the total to a proposed 36.

And, sincerely... Yes, I truly mean this; take a deep breath.... wait for it... Alright... Airtight....... FREE WILL vs. DETERMINISM DEBATE NOW... Completely solved!!! Hold your intellectual breath until the end.

NOT CLICK-BAIT just raw intellectual Rock'n Roll!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's get to it then. In continuing explanation on the proposed nine new categories, a transcendent stage representative of an evolutionary synthesis of the 27, bringing us to 36, I have the following to strengthen the learning curve where I've tied everything back to our discussion on free will vs determinism as one greater context by which the transcendant categories can be more deeply integrated. These are serious perspectives, so despite everything else, please reader take them as seriously as it aids personal reflection on the subjects at hand and I won't let you down.

Another greater goal here is to remove foreseen potential ambiguities in differentiating between the archetypal and transcendent set, in doing so this exposition spans further distinction through their hypothetical use in the previously titled "Integrative Consciousness Streaming or ICS" that I've begun to open on the other thread, and that I'll be doing an independent post on the stated date of November 1st; at a bare minimum I will propose how they will provide the very useful option of being used as a creative mathematical intersection, something that also intersects with a self-awareness augmentor, and that I have a lot of success with. By the way, my goal of integrating a model of Christopher Langan's CTMU or some variation here (Syndiffeonic Telic Hyper-Streaming: A CTMU-Integrated Framework for Recursive Consciousness Streaming and Emergent Reality Decoding) from its own unique angle as I've just proposed with the 36 ontological categories, is NOT clickbait either; one producing structural self-referential modelling and the other of course, more functional self-referential modelling; again, all completed by Nov 1st. In experimentation so far, I am also integrating a model I've been building to encompass the deeper psychological aspects of consciousness (presently even experimenting with improvisational music inclusive of self-referential voice and lyric, however by Nov 1st something more general and niche will be expanded upon to cater), and that's on a continuous loop as well with every other integrated model. Joining their self-referentiality leading to a fluid loop while not subtracting to any individual there.

Returning forward, the transcendent set of 9 categories in the context of ICS represent a meta-synthetic evolution from the archetypal set. Between the inner-outer they resolve dualities into self-referential forms that enable what is this hierarchical transcendence; said from a preliminary view point, think of the Archetypes reaching full self awareness (not just preliminary awareness, if at all; archetypal vs transcendent from an analogical point of view could even be seen as a mind versus matter) within and across each other, especially when in context of the synthesis of the inner and outer categories. The Archetypes function as primordial relational primitives, providing foundational operations in base spaces; transcendent forms synthesize these with self-organization, higher-dimensional integration, recursive feedback, and emergent properties that transcend duality in the emergence of the self-awarensss. This synthesis enables hierarchical escalation in ICS towards levels that not only reflect cognition but who's basis becomes supportive self-referentiality that naturally creates this terrain for encapsulating self-awareness in realms of consciousness within and beyond mere meta-self awareness. Prior, archetypes provided foundational operations, whereas now, any greater explorations now too, have a language for those experiences as well as fully articulating the transcendent forms in ways that will facilitate non-linear, self-sustaining dynamics for what is a deeper step into this stated provocation; higher consciousness expansive integration, in short.

Between the two we're looking at Emerging Key Distinctions for greater learning as follows:

1. Structural Complexity: Archetypes are primitive operators (e.g., All as basic unification); transcendent forms incorporate looped or entangled structures (e.g., Self-Referential Unity as toroidal self-loop).

2. Dimensionality: Archetypes operate in base relational spaces; transcendent forms embed in higher dimensions (e.g., Difference as simple boundary vs. Entangled Boundary as quantum 5D edge).

3. Interaction Mode: Archetypes act directly; transcendent forms enable self-modulation (e.g., Action propels externally/internally vs. Self-Propelling Kinesis as autonomous vectorial flow).

4. Duality Resolution: Archetypes define polarities; transcendent forms resolve them (e.g., Division segments vs. Meta-Deconstruction bifurcates with awareness of whole).

5. Recursive Capacity: Archetypes are linear; transcendent forms introduce recursion (e.g., Connection binds vs. Nodal Self-Link as self-knotting interdependence).

6. Inductive Yield: Archetypes yield basic patterns; transcendent forms generate meta-inductives (e.g., Multiplication scales vs. Fractal Self-Replication iterates self-similarly).

7. Phenomenological Impact: Archetypes ground perception; transcendent forms horizon altered states (e.g., Projection extends vs. Infinite Self-Extension as infinite ray self-aware).

8. Geometric Metaphor: Archetypes as basic gestures (e.g., Encompassment encircles); transcendent forms as self-referential geometries (e.g., Conspansive Self-Containment as breathing sphere, per Meru gesture models linking to self-organization).

I am hoping these distinctions resolve any potential future confusion by emphasizing transcendent forms as evolved meta-operators, not mere "aware" archetypes. Bridging to our discussion so far on determinism vs free will, in ICS, archetypes reflect deterministic, reactionary processes, lacking free will, as modulations follow external/internal contingencies without self-originating choice. Humans operate archetypally in 3D reality, where actions (e.g., archetype Action) are causal reactions, devoid of true autonomy, constrained by perceptual limits and linear causality; at least that's the limited prevailing scientific view, even if as I'm postulating here, it's not really the spirit of true science, to try and dogmatically push this... Especially now.

I am proposing, that these Transcendent Forms introduce self-referential complexity, generating "free will" as emergent from higher-dimensional closure that I'll explain more on below. I would say, that Transcendent All unifies self-referentially, originating choice from looped awareness. Stay with me here, as you'll understand by the end. Transcendent Difference entangles boundaries, allowing non-deterministic selection. Transcendent Action self-propels kinesis, enabling volitional becoming. Transcendent Division meta-deconstructs, bifurcating paths with intentional isolation. Transcendent Connection nodal self-links, forging interdependent decisions. Transcendent Multiplication fractally self-replicates, iterating willful growth. Transcendent Projection infinitely self-extends, forecasting autonomous futures. Transcendent Encompassment conspansively self-contains, bounding choices dynamically. Transcendent Completion affirmatively self-resolves, consummating volitional cycles.

Free will non-exists archetypally, as 3D reactions; transcendentally, it emerges as higher dimensionality (4D+ temporal nonlocalities, 5D entanglements) lived in 3D, where self-referential logic reoriginates temporal directions simultaneously. ICS training under hypothetical employment of all 36 in the stated compressed way in the comments just previous, activates the transcendent forms, and the transcendent pathway in general where awareness speaks the language of self organisation and the latter the meeting ground between transcendence and free will, transcending reactionary self to complex self-referentiality, manifesting free will as inevitable higher-dimensional closure in lower planes. Still not there yet? Well you'll understand at the closure point of this comment, I promise, and I WILL, keep my promise.

I came up with the dimensional interpretation of free will last night actually while listening to the following YouTube video which I still haven't watched all of by the way yet haha but looking forward to being able to, TITLE: This Physicist just proved Free Will Using Thermodynamics - https://youtu.be/7kvXihDAOi0?si=dYdrBUl5bnEqzYUS . I shared my views in the comments section accordingly, including my views that existed prior to the shared realisation, and I quote:

"So one significant limitation of determinism I've been thinking of arises from its typical framing within a three-dimensional (3D) ontology, which aligns neatly with our perceived reality. If we conceptualize each level of dimensionality as a distinct ontological framework governing existence, then in the 3D context, rooted in again Newtonian physics and the causal constraints on biological consciousness, determinism emerges as the predominant computational model; "obviously!" says the next Newtonian buzzhead walking past in university hallways. A perspective as we know which readily dismisses free will as illusory, given its simplicity and alignment with observable causality. That said however, envisioning "freedom" in a four-dimensional (4D) or higher context introduces substantial complexity, as our understanding of such spaces remains incomplete. Consequently, the scientific community often eschews these intricacies, favoring accessible analogies, such as a hypothetical supercomputer capable of predicting the universe's future with complete accuracy, due to their conceptual tidiness and familiarity, ironically taking the "easy way out".

This view offers a compelling philosophical lens, though it requires nuance for accuracy so let me go further. Determinism extends beyond strict 3D bounds into 4D spacetime, where quantum mechanics injects inherent indeterminism, potentially supporting free will through compatibilist or libertarian models rather than solely higher spatial dimensions. Theories like string theory propose up to 10 or 11 dimensions, often compactified, without direct empirical ties to consciousness or agency. The preference for simple analogies reflects classical physics legacy, undermined by quantum unpredictability that precludes perfect foresight.To better contextualize free will versus determinism though, envision their interplay evolving across dimensional ontologies, starting with rigid constraints in lower realms and progressing toward expansive freedoms in higher ones, where awareness may signal hyperdimensional origins unifying enigmas like remote viewing or afterlife experiences, rather than a computer just spontaneously becoming aware because its 'prefrontal cortex' has sufficient neural complexity and diversity, but rather, that its merely supportive of underlying consciousness that pre-exists in a hyperdimensional space where awareness is able to speak through higher dimensional lines that we're unable to directly 'see' in 3D space; go figure we say back to the "university hallroom busshead". In 1D space, a linear continuum enforces absolute determinism along a single axis; causal chains unbreakable, free will absent, awareness passive. Ascending to 2D, a planar surface permits limited branching under deterministic forces like collisions; free will superficial, consciousness bound pattern recognition. In 3D volumetric reality, Newtonian chains deem free will illusory, yet quantum probabilism hints agency via compatibilism. Entering 4D spacetime, time spatialized yields static block-universe; free will as timeline navigation, quantum branching adds indeterminism. In 5D extra dimension, determinism fate-like below but volitional above accessing timelines; free will selects probabilistic manifolds. With 6D compactified extensions from string theory, 3D determinism from vibrations; entangled choices amplify quantum agency multidimensionally. In 7D further compactification, symmetries spawn lower laws; hyperdimensional decisions transcend causality, unifying nonlocal awareness. Advancing to 8D string intermediates, determinism multiversally fragments; free will selects realities, quantum randomness emergent. In 9D pre-compactified strings, symmetries underpin determinism; consciousness projects entangled volition beyond 3D. Finally, 10D string framework encompasses forces; hyperdimensional indeterminism prevails, free will influences vibrations, explaining consciousness enigmas.

This dimensional progression illustrates how free will appears constrained in lower ontologies but emerges robustly in higher ones, suggesting awareness transcends 3D simplicity to interface with hyperdimensional complexities. Look I get this is all speculative and I have zero idea just how many dimensions exist, but it does align more with the interdisciplinary explorations in physics and philosophy; rather than an outdated neuroscientific purview where they believe they're fully encapsulating free will by using limited 3D instruments to measure what now, I would argue which is the first time for me, is a higher dimensional phenomenological object, kind of like how we can't put down qualia to just 3D sensory words; we know it when we experience it, but we can't teach a robot what it feels like as it can't experience it, at least, so far right! Do you see quantum effects as bridging these dimensions further? Eager for more discussions anyhow, I have no idea how much the quantum stuff overlaps, but the dimensional reference frame, does seem like a more reliable and deeper ontological set for me regardless."

So although I am certainly open to being proven wrong, I now believe I've without a doubt resolved this question of free will vs determinism, and it is as nearly always intuited or at least in the last few years, it's at the core of it, purely a matter of dialing up or dialing down awareness concerning where we place the dot of expansion on the 'quantum circle' of free will vs determinism, and that in this simultaneous breath concerning what are the final 9 transcendent categories, is where we tie that recursive self referential knot on both subjects. That is, that yes meta-synthesis of awareness is what invariably leads to the self organisation that essentially grows sentience, and that free will, is the self referential awareness that defines the level of that transcendence; where higher meta synthesis and higher meta transcendence are complementary opposites that forge the same integrative whole; connecting where the Archetypal All to Completion continually meet and define the Transcendent All to Completion. Now, the challenge is in understanding the meeting ground of dimension curvature here along the arc of the 3D and higher, which, I have an enormous amount of work to figure out, as I just have no idea. It's certainly interesting g though, and I'm looking forward to what I'll discover on the other transcendent end of it.

I promised you that you'd understand by the end didn't I? Ha, if not, just give a shout out and I'll definitely get back to you by Nov 1st.

Otherwise if I had anything else to add, because free will is both emergence and beginning point, these final transcendent categories, are actually just as transitional, and we'll undoubtedly be able to find new takes where any one meta-transcendent point reveals itself in our own self-discovery through deeper consciousness streaming and general sparks of personal insight. Yes there are different levels by which the categories can be interpreted and therefore have different encompassing points in their use, anyone astute on systems thinking already knows that any transition made like these traces itself around ontological insights that force a paradigm shift; which at the very least as we've already reached here, is meta dimensional, and beyond that, only a fuller step into the dimensional arc that encases us to both the 3D and our reaches beyond this, like free will is. Thus in this what I hope is now vivid resolution, free will is not only an answer to an arrival point but both a beginning and solution point regarding where not only we must go in our natural transition from determinism and from not only a practical viewpoint but an ontological one that will undoubtedly eventually become a scientific one for the university 'textbooks' of the future but that we're forced to go in, in following our natural self organisational consciousness that seeks to meet itself in order to grow and evolve with and beyond itself towards greater integration of the higher dimensions. There's more points to make, but for between now and Nov 1st, that's precisely where you the reader come in as I'd love to learn from any other viewpoints.

 ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

Like I said at the beginning of this post and I quote: 

And, sincerely... Yes, I truly mean this; take a deep breath.... wait for it... Alright... Airtight....... FREE WILL vs. DETERMINISM DEBATE NOW... Completely solved!!! 

I've re-emphasised this point for a repost ha as I think the average reader may deterministically, skip over where I said that at the beginning of this post; enjoy the meta-paradox.

Yes, I have LITERALLY solved it. Like I said, it was NOT click-bait. Simply go back to the start and read over. I KNOW RIGHT! F*ing awesome.

[ otherwise yah, I'm genuinely, genuinely open to alternative viewpoints as I never stay stuck in my opinions. ]

 ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

Rock out till again, November 1st yal, like mentioned, continue to update, grow, improve what I've shared, ask questions. What amazing work by Stan Tenen, work that I'm also looking forward to understanding on a deeper level, and again what a great synthesis by Brandon here, excellent work.

Great interesting coincidence that this would all come together at more or less the same time heh!

Thank you and best wishes!

[Michael]

While I’m away until November 1st, I want to leave the forum with a meaningful question that I believe will sharpen our collective understanding and deepen the learning process:

Which sets of ontological categories: Archetypal, Inner, Outer, and Transcendent - correlate more strongly with different kinds of reasoning?

I won’t list all the kinds of reasoning here, as I think that would give too much away. That said, I do believe this hint will guide readers in the right direction, toward investigating how different reasoning modes might align with the unique roles and functions of each category set.

This question is not only helpful for distinguishing the Transcendent set from the original three, it's also for affirming the significance and necessity of its inclusion in the establishment of the full 36-category system. It’s a powerful lens through which to explore why the fourth set is not just valid, it's essential.

I’ll return with my own detailed response and framework on November 1st, and if possible, I look forward to comparing insights.

Until then, best of luck, and I hope this provokes some deep engagement and thoughtful exploration. Let’s push the boundaries of this system together.

[Michael]

By the way, maybe this sparks the curiosity of others and if so then great, I hope it becomes a personal conversation you have with yourself that captures your imagination enough to the point that, even if for just a moment, it changes the way you perceive reality enough that it plants a seed in your mind that you only wish to return to some time into the future.

I am working on a new self-referential language for numbers and math; which is precisely not only what's implied by the transcendent set but its very incidence touches on what has been one of the encompassing roadblocks in bridging the difference between math, quantum experimentation and higher dimensional work. I won't give too much away, and yeah granted this is the film industry we're dealing with, though that said, the 2016 film Arrival with Denis Villeneuve, creates an implicit dialogue with the audience about how language both infects and creates our dream space and in return, how we perceive the world and they did this around understanding... I won't give it away if you haven't seen the film, which I urge as its one of my favorites. In short, I sporadically became a little obsessed with the film thereafter every few months, creating the mental spaces in my own mind for the impact of driving my own self-created language, believing that one day I would create a permanent access point for something meaningful. And well, unexpectedly, I now indeed have. An entire mathematical language predicated by self-referentiality, is the bare minimum of what's needed to reshape cognition in which it can begin to broach perception into the 4D with less than accidental fluidity. 

All the best.

Regards,

Michael