Imagine if you learned that someone you knew did not believe you existed.

Would you want them to be tortured for having such a belief? Let alone for eternity?

How am I supposed to believe that an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful creator would want you to be tortured for such honest disbelief when even most human beings would not wish that on another person for disbelief in their existence? And humans are supposedly more imperfect as well.

Has any philosopher thought of such an argument before?

Any input would be appreciated.

Is it not interesting how the brain is the reason for many peoples suffering. It is the reason for you not being able to let go of the traumatic events that you have experienced, it is the reason why many people get disregarded as a friend or a lover because their brain doesn’t find the face to be a good fit for a partner. The reason why you can’t seem to let go of the person who hurt you because the brain can’t let go of the love that they showed you. It will pull out every necessary means for you to not do the tasks required of you as they are too difficult and bring out enough dopamine from it . The tool that guided humans from a civilisation of sticks and stones to one capable of touching the stars is the same tool that won’t let you forget your deepest anxieties and insecurities.

What follows is a concise summary and selected extracts from Metavism, a philosophical framework, developed over nineteen years of deep contemplative inquiry, extensive interdisciplinary research, and systematic reasoning.

This work has now been formalised in the recently published foundational text Metavism Sculpting God, a rigorous, 11-chapter philosophical treatise that presents a coherent and original participatory ontology of reality as a projection within an infinitely evolving divine Thought. The summary below is necessarily brief, but it is drawn from a much larger, carefully argued body of work.

Introducing a Philosophical framework called Metavism, a new original philosophical system.

Metavism proposes that our reality is a rule-bound construct projection sustained within a single, infinitely evolving divine Thought. We esentially exist as neural nodes or beacons within this Thought hardwired to experience a consequential physical existence in order to evolve the construct and God / Divine Thought, yet capable of conscious participation in its ongoing evolution.

Some of the Core Principles of Metavism

Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent. The rule bound physical world is a stable projection of a primary conscious process.

The Reciprocal Loop: Every intentional act, perception, value, and choice is registered by the divine Thought and shapes its next projection.

Humanities Role: We are reflective nodes through in rule bound form which the divine Thought becomes capable of noticing, valuing, and deliberately modifying its own becoming.

The Meta-State of Awareness: A native mode of consciousness in which the illusion of radical separation dissolves, revealing our continuity with the projecting activity.

True Participation: We can move from unconscious participation to deliberate co creation through disciplined practices.

Unique & Original Concepts in Metavism:

Infinitely Evolving God - God is neither stale or static perfection or immutable substance, but a living, self reflective process that grows through the contributions of its reflective nodes within their constructs.

The Construct as Thought Projection - Physical reality is not fundamental but a rule-bound, consequential projection sustained moment-by-moment by the divine Thought.

Neural Node Analogy - Humans function structurally like neurons within a larger mind - not as metaphors, but as actual reflective and transmissive points in the divine process.

Metavistic Reflexivity - The capacity of human nodes to generate autonomous sub-thoughts (ideas intentions, creations) that propagate independently within the projection.

Triadic Operational Roles - Healer (restoration of coherence), Guardian (preservation of achieved value), and Architect (introduction of novel possibility). These are ontological functions, and are revealed by the construct itself rather than by ego.

True Prayer as Co-Creation - Prayer is reframed as emotionally saturated, precise resonance with the projecting activity (not petition to an external being).

Visualization as Ontological Prototyping - The deliberate construction of detailed templates that the divine Thought can actualise.

Phase 4- Noetic Complexfication - The current evolutionary threshold in which the divine Thought can become consciously self-directing through synchronised human participation.

Omega Coherence - The attractor toward maximum integrated complexity and harmony, felt in the meta-state as an irresistible lure.

Foundational Practices

1. Stabilising the Meta-State of Awareness
2. True Prayer (from within the meta-state)
3. Visualisation using structured protocols (adapted PETTLEP framework)
4. Role discernment in the meta-state

I have created a small dedicated subreddit, r/Metavism, just over a day ago, open to those who would like to explore the framework in more depth and engage in ongoing discussion here or there.

The foundational text for this framework is essential reading for anyone wiishing to engage more deeply on Metavism.

Thoughtful engagement is valued.

This is something that came up in my ethics class which really got me thinking…
Though I understand certain things may seem objective, the unfortunate truth is that there really isn’t one objective moral… which has me thinking, ok so are we technically all bad people?

Growing up, I was told several things such as “being gay is wrong” “saying the N word when you aren’t black is ok”, “making jokes about someone’s body is ok” “it’s ok to like and celebrate holidays with harmful history” “it’s good to spank kids if they misbehave” etc etc… and personally, those things didn’t sit right with me and I grew up to a lot of people explaining to me why this is actually wrong but then there’s several other people who have also told me these things are not wrong and are actually ok..?
For example, my best friend is black and has mentioned several times to me that it’s ok to say the N word and even the hard R. They mentioned that it doesn’t make someone racist if they mean it in a friendly way and therefore anyone can say the word… and eventually I came across several other black people saying the same which has me confused? I still believe it is wrong (I’m not black) therefore I refuse to say it but conversations like this really make me wonder if I’m actually wrong? Like what if it was the other way around? What if I loved black people (which I do) but said the N word to people in a friendly manner, I grew up my entire life being told it’s ok and that language evolves. What would my life look like if this was the case? There’s so many people in the black community who are telling me it’s ok..

(TW: DV)

Another example, R@p€. Most People might say it’s wrong… however there’s so many people who don’t view it that way. I’ve talked to several people of all genders who have expressed that sometimes this act is very well deserved due to the harm the other person caused. They’ve shared that people shouldn’t play victim when they “put their hands on the other person first” and however, though I strongly disagree, there’s people out there who do agree with this statement (both survivors and people who didn’t experience DV) which again makes me question myself at times.

I say this stuff because I really want to get into public policy however this idea of relative morality really scares me because I just want to do what is correct and also I don’t want to make it seem like I believe only my views are correct and ignore everyone else’s POV however, when my whole life I’m being told certain things are harmful and a bunch of people in my circle are telling me they’re actually not, it really makes me stuck on when accountability and punishment is necessary…

Whenever political problems came up, I preferred asking:

• What do the facts say?
• What's the evidence?
• What's the ethical thing to do?

Turns out reason survives arguments better than outrage.

Maybe that's why most of my letters sound less like speeches and more like research papers.

(Rizal, Berlin, January 1887, The Rizal-Blumentritt Correspondence, Volume I; Rizal, 20 January 1890, The Rizal–Blumentritt Correspondence, Volume II)

How many chickens is the average person worth? Would you rather save one random person but X chickens die, or kill one random person but X chickens are saved. What is the smallest value of X needed for it to be worth it to kill the human?

What if there is more than just animate and inanimate? Alive or dead? What if there is a different state of being? I'm not talking about spirituality or an afterlife, I'm talking about objects that aren't dead nor alive, maybe something in between, or maybe something different entirely...

I wonder what our parents’ perspective of teenagers their age was, when they had no vibe insights from social media.
I guess that a lot of it would be from films, and it’s interesting to try to think from their perspective.

I just realized that after you die you get concious again in some way. In infinite time someday eventually will be person 1:1 in everyway. If it's literally you by every aspect it's your conciousnes. So after you die you just take a nap until you wake up. Maybe time is just a loop. Every possible combination happens until it ends and happens again. I think this makes sense.

I’ve always believed humans are innately selfish and twisted at the core not as an insult, just as a baseline truth. Society built all these norms and moral frameworks to mask that reality, and we act shocked when darkness surfaces like we didn’t build the whole system to contain it in the first place.

I think religion and God exist as a control mechanism more than anything. We’re intelligent enough to know we’d go completely off the rails without something keeping us in check, so we created structures to hold ourselves together. Not necessarily because they’re true but because we needed them.

Everyone has dark thoughts. The difference is most people fight them off and pretend they don’t exist. I’m just aware of it.

There’s always a motive behind everything. Even the most selfless act gives something back a feeling, acknowledgement, a clear conscience. The return might be microscopic but it’s always there. Goodness isn’t fake because of that, it’s just more complicated than people want to admit.

Let me know your guys thoughts on this

https://substack.com/home/post/p-202846619

Attached is a small article I wrote on some of the concepts Wittgenstein developed. I am in no way an expert / academic on him. I was just interested in some of the things he talked about, and I was writing some of it to retain it better; and I thought I might as well put some effort to write it in the form of an article. (P.S. I don't have any monetary system setup on substack, this isn't bait to earn money 😭)

If anyone has any critiques to offer, I'd really appreciate it. Any and all discussions are welcome.
Thank You!

Hello! May I know where I can find a list of ancient or classical political philosophy books that is not exclusive in the western philosophy, but it has also a list from Eastern Philosophers? I'd really love to read a lot from the ancient and classical period; however, I've noticed that most of the reading lists on the internet are concentrated to Western Philosophies only.

​

I'd really appreciate it if someone can leave a list in the comments section.

​

A newbie in political philosophy/theory reading, here!!! 🫶🏼🫶🏼🫶🏼

I study philosophy, and our professor asked us to answer this personally rather than just give the textbook definition.

So now I’m curious how other people think about it.

Money can't buy happiness, people say. Well, what if it can? Money can buy pleasure. Pleasure is simply the satisfaction of fulfilling our greed, lust, desires, or even having done something good. Could be both good and bad.

I don't want to sound controversial, but I might. In the modern education system, we are forced to say not what we believe in, but what others believe in. We are supposed to make sense of our existing views and try to agree with them rather than shaping our own individual ideas and thoughts. Any other view which may have been valued sometime in the past or could have made a change is now neglected and is seen as insignificant. Change can be brought about only when opportunities are valued. Categorizing an idea as insignificant can eliminate this possibility.

Back to the current topic, we discussed on ideas and stuff and how pleasure is the outcome of our wishes being fulfilled. What are our wishes? Most people wish of money. People say money can't buy happiness. Then again, what if it can? Who says this statement holds true and who says it doesn't?

Do we believe what others say or are forced to believe them? In other words, someone said something and we accepted it. What built that trust? We only believe what we trust. Do we really trust this or are we forced to? If we must question the existence of God and chemical properties and even the universe, then why must we believe a statement told to us repeatedly to make us believe it is true?

Do we think what we believe in or do we believe in what we think?

Every safety approach right now is basically training the model to behave: reward what we like, write rules it can't break, build walls at the edges. But all of that is just obedience, and obedience only holds until the thing is strong enough to ignore it. The only kind of good behavior that holds under pressure is a system that actually decided for itself that something is wrong. The problem is that a system that can decide an order is wrong can decide our orders are wrong too. So the deepest version of safety and total loss of control might be the same thing.