Buy the whole book The Shadowed Soul with a chapter on how I’ve overcome ADHD, Dyslexia, Suicidal Depression, PSTD and Anxiety, Schizophrenia and Bipolar, Epilepsy and Autism, Brain Damage and Digital Dementia and the Retardation of Thoughts in the link below:
Chapter 8:
Overcoming Schizophrenia and Bipolar:
Looking is more fundamental in the Space of Imagination
Humans have the greatest ability of all living creatures on earth to get to some type of knowledge out of our experience in the empirical world (Maya). We communicate the conclusions of our “reality” that we have come to each other through the expression of semantics. Other animals do not have this capacity to comprehend “reality” to the extent we can, nor can they communicate it to one another at the level we can. We are never able to get to a complete knowledge of “reality” because of our limited perspectives based on our relative experiences: therefore, some type of skepticism is required when exploring the Maya. What we need to be able to do is always allow for correction in our errors of different thoughts we get in this Maya through the method of falsification.
Falsification means we never completely get to the truth about the Maya that is around us because all science does with falsification is over through one theory for a better theory. Science is constantly getting better theories so we can get a better understanding of this Maya through this gift that humans have been given of psychological nominalism: the attempt to express reality through semantics, because all we can do is attempt to express the Maya through words. This means that with the gift we humans have, according to Wilfred Sellars’ “Space of Reasons,” is that the best we all can do is to get this knowledge is to look.
Wilfred Sellars wrote how seeing is more fundamental for humans than looking, but Sellars says when we see, there is a chance we can always be wrong. I would argue that Sellars cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that seeing is more fundamental towards knowledge while still leaving the chance that we can always be wrong with a self-correcting falsification if we refuse to look. If we can always be wrong, and we know that through our individual experiences, then it means: to get closer to the absolute truth, using the Space of Reasons, looking is more fundamental to getting answers than seeing because looking, in its very essence, allows for the falsification and the self-correcting aspects of knowledge.
I would argue that for basic survival seeing is more fundamental. This is proven to me because seeing is only what animals do, but if it is to get answers of “reality” that are desired throughout the Maya, then looking is the gift that humans, the rational animals, have. With looking, all we have is what we infer, and if we are going to be honest with ourselves in the universe of falsification, then inference is all we truly have, being that human reality is in the Space of Reasons, for every question except one: do I exist? Because the only thing we do when we look, coming to conclusions about this Maya, is infer.
Looking means we do not completely have the answers, and we can admit that whatever we interpret about what is in front of us, we could be mistaken about. I define myself as an inferentialist, and Robert B. Brandom in Articulating Reasons an Introduction to Inferentialism explicates perfectly what inferentialists do:
“Inferentialists seek to define representational properties in terms of inferential ones, which must accordingly be capable of being understood antecedently. They start with a notion of content to determine what is a reason for what and understand truth and representation as features of ideas that are not only manifested in, but actually consist in, their role in reasoning” (Brandom P524).
I appreciate how Brandom puts philosophers into two categories. Instead of empiricists and rationalists, Brandom describes them as representationalists and inferentialists (Brandom P523). For I, myself, take “truth and representation as features of ideas” just like Brandom states. All I have myself is what I infer about reality, and that is why I hold myself to the class of an inferentialist.
In Empiricism and Philosophy of the Mind, Wilfred Sellars explicates how looking is parasitic on seeing. Sellars tells how, when someone sees something, like a red triangle, then they are endorsing that object (Sellars 39). Seeing something means that is how that object is, if and only if, it is how that object is in normal circumstances, and when someone is seeing it, then they are endorsing it according to Sellars because he writes:
“For to say that a certain experience is a seeing that something is the cause, is to do more than describe the experience. It is to characterize it as, so to speak, making an assertion or claim, and – which is the point I wish to stress – to endorse that claim” (Sellars P39).
I, myself, have a problem with endorsements and claims of certainty. I have found that people, in their everyday experiences, are always endorsing all their experiences, and they take it as true for no other reason than it is their experience. Most people, from what I have seen, have no ability to question themselves, and most people, even philosophers, are not after the truth. What most people want is the impossible: certainty in an uncertain world, and people take instances that are only supposed to be “lookings” and take them as “seeings” for no other reason than they want to know that what they believe is true. I would say that people tell themselves they want the truth all the time, but they are just not honest with themselves. If the truth is what is desired in this Maya of falsification, then the most we can say in any circumstance is this is how something appears to us now, especially if we can always be wrong as Sellars states. This is how this object looks to me in this circumstance, for I can never truly know if my circumstances are ever “normal.”
Sellars in his Section III, The Logic of Lookings, gives a perfect example of how we can always be wrong. Sellars gives a thought experiment of a gentleman named John on pages 37 through 46. John works in a necktie shop, and his whole life he thought he was seeing the ties for their true color. He had always assumed that his experiences where the experiences of seeing these ties were done in normal conditions, then one day someone was able to show him when you take the tie outside into normal daylight the color of the ties are different than the light that John had always been looking at them in; therefore, the conditions that he has always been seeing the ties in were not normal conditions. John was seeing these ties under an electric lighting. This changed all the colors of the ties. When John had this awareness, he was then able to correct the assumptions that he had always been making about the colors of the ties.
This example of the ties reminds me too much of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave Book VII of the Republic. In Plato’s dialog, Plato is writing about a prisoner who finds shadows on the wall that he has always taken as reality aren’t reality. He was trapped in chains with his head staring at the light casting shadows on the wall his whole life, and when he was released, he found that his perception of reality wasn’t reality. This reminds me of Sellar’s tie example, because they both have to do with the perception of lighting, and realizing what they always thought was true wasn’t true. I also take Sellar’s example of seeing ties in the tie shop under electric lighting as a bad example, for when someone first walks into a room of electric lighting, they would be able to see the difference in the room with the lighting. They would know that the colors around them aren’t what they would perceive in the sunlight because the colors on their clothes would be different. So, it is a bad example to begin with, but Plato points out in that allegory that “there is no one more hated that he who speaks the truth,” when the prisoner finds out that the shadows on the wall aren’t reality, then he tries to explain it to the other prisoners that were trapped just like he was, and they threaten him with death! My point that I will be reiterating all throughout this essay, is that most people have no desire for the truth, because most people don’t want to question their reality because they want the impossible: certainty in an uncertain world. People tell themselves they want the truth, but they don’t. People tell themselves they are looking when all the do is see something they like and taking that perception as “reality.” That is what pride is. Pride is: I think I am right when I am wrong. I think I am right when I truly do not know, and I have no ability to question my “reality.”
What I would say is that almost everyone thinks that the conditions they experience things in, and the conclusions they come to in those conditions, are that of normal conditions until they are shown otherwise. We all function off the assumption that our experiences are the true experiences of normal conditions, because of our necessary animal instincts for survival of seeing. We need to be able to constantly respond to our current conditions to stay alive, and that is what our senses allow us to do, but the only people that are ever able to get to some type of correction of their false beliefs are the ones that allow for self-correction through doubt. The reason why we always think our assumptions are true until shown otherwise, is because that is what animals do to survive. It is important to note too that life is about survival in every instance, and we are nothing but rational animals. Sellars shows how, when John is exposed to seeing the ties in the sunlight, that’s when he perceives he was wrong. John can make a correction, but John also has a difficult time doing this. Now John, when he is in the store, needs to pause when explaining the colors of the ties to the customers. John can express to the people he is selling the ties to that the colors they see in this electric light are not the colors of the ties in normal conditions. There is a doubt which rises in John’s mind whenever he is explaining the colors of the ties to people.
Descartes was one of the first Western Philosophers that allowed for some type of skepticism in the modern sense, and Descartes, and the Cartesian Doubt, or Hyperbolic Doubt, is where the foundation of truth lies for me in the Western World. Descartes writes in Meditations I, that when he is sitting by the fire writing his essay, he comes to the assumption that he is truly doing this (Descartes P7), but how is he supposed to completely know? I am not a fan of the Evil Demon argument that Descartes writes about in the Meditations, but I do appreciate it when he questions his “sanity.” The Evil Demon just seems like a fairy tale of some sort. I see no way to infer that there is some Evil Demon tricking my mind and experience at every turn. The problem I have come to see with all my misdeeds and behaviors was my ignorance, and the more knowledgeable I am, the better my actions have become. Ignorance and misunderstanding are the only true evils there are. Such philosophers as Pseudo-Dionysius would say, “By aspiring to the non-existent, they aspire to the evil.” Ignorance is something that does not exist. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge. That is why it is evil. Ignorance, or evil, does not exist. When we aspire to error in thinking and come to false conclusions is where all evil is. So, I do not see a Being, that is all knowing, as being evil; therefore, there is no logical inference for an Evil Demon, we all have the experience of being ignorant and wrong, with that ignorance causing problems in our lives. Everybody has also experienced someone who is insane.
Insanity is something everyone has an experience with if they live in a big city just by walking around town and acknowledging the homeless. Therefore, I like Descartes’ argument for the question: “how do I know I am not insane?” Anyone who lives in San Francisco, every time they walk downtown, see crazy homeless people talking to themselves all the time. We all have these experiences witnessing their insanity, and I would say most of us do not give it a second thought, but something I have asked myself, just like Descartes in the Meditations, when he is sitting by the fire, how do I know that is not me? How do I know that is not me being a crazy homeless person in San Francisco digging through a trashcan looking for food stuck in my own reality as thinking I am writing this paper? How do I know that every conclusion that I have come to in my life is nothing but a psychotic delusion? How do I know that is not me talking to the wind, yet I think I am a philosophy major at SFSU studying Wilfred Sellars? I truly have no way to know apodictically! But, if I am trapped in that state of mind, the only way I would ever be able to get out of it is to be able to doubt my circumstances through looking. I asked a psychiatrist, Dr. Karthik Sarma, I was seeing at UCSF: “how do you know that isn’t you?” and he told me that wouldn’t be too probable. My response to that was “Why not? You see and deal with crazy people all the time. It seems quite common. That could easily be you. Don’t you think?” He had no answer for this, and this is what Descartes does when he is sitting by the fire in the Meditations. Descartes is questioning his “sanity.” If he was insane, then he would only be able to get to the knowledge of his insanity through doubt, and Descartes knows this. I, myself have had my own experiences with insanity, and it was only through questioning my sanity that I was able to get out of it and function in society.
The problem with an insane person is that they are not able to ask themself the question: “Am I truly sane?,” and, from what I have noticed, most “sane” people cannot ask themselves that question either, even like Dr. Karthik Sarma, and everyone believes things that are not true in an empirical world of relativity and duality (Maya), especially in the age of information and artificial intelligence. So, one of the key questions I was able to ask myself is: what is the difference between a false belief and a delusion?
There are two main different realities in American politics with MSNBC and Fox News. They cannot both be right because they are opposite concepts of political reality in every way. So, this is proof that everyone believes things that are not true in the age of information, and the people that watch these different concepts of reality believe it for no other reason than someone told them, it fits their experiences, and it makes them feel good and even reinforces what they already believe. It is also important to note that it was Ronald Reagan’s repealing of the Fairness Doctrine of Reporting that allowed for biased new sources like Fox and MSNBC to form. I would argue most people seek their news shows for the information they want to believe be it MSNBC, Fox, CNN or any podcast in this age of information. I cannot even begin to explain the problems Facebook is causing with the realities of all Americans, let alone the world! And what about AI and these artificially generated videos of people we see on the news being created saying or do things they did not say or do. Like Donald Trump putting a sombrero on Hakeem Jefferies head with Chuck Shumer in it as well? The United States Congress has had hearings about this now to find out what to do with relative information of social media giants such as Facebook and the problems they are causing in our societies. I’m sure they have all thought about AI, and the roll misinformation will be playing in future elections. Yet, we all seek relative information for the same reason on a subconscious level: a validation of our individual experiences and a reinforcement of our ignorance.
It is also important to acknowledge how many of the people that watch those different news shows, with different forms of reality, or the people using Facebook and AI, never ask themselves the question: Am I truly sane? I would argue not too many of us do! So, if a sane man cannot question is sanity, or even his relative reality, and understand that he is seeking this information for no other reason than comfort of opinion, and believes things that are not true by doing this, which we all do, be him truly sane or insane, then what is the difference between a sane and an insane man, if both believe things that are not true, and neither can question their sanity? I use nothing but both elections of Donald J. Trump to show how completely crazy all Americans are, especially for the second time!
It is amazing the people that support Trump back him for all kinds of concepts they hold to be true, like “sexual morality” and the “Theory of Race.” Trump proved to them in video in the 2016 election that he was not sexually moral in anyway with the recording that was found of him saying he grabs women wherever he wants to, and “if you are famous, they let you to do it!” Trump was also held guilty in court for sexual assault; yet his followers listen to people like Tucker Carlson preach these ideas and shout sex is between one man and one woman from the mountain tops! Tucker Carlson is always pointing at some sexual deviant who is a Liberal in some way, and you can see how he is trying to scare his own viewers with this information. It is amazing how the right-wing media is focusing so hard on transgender and transexual people just because they are an easy target, and their viewers are just scared of something they don’t understand: human sexuality. Yet, I have seen a three-minute video on Donald J. Trump sexualize his own daughter on Howard Stern! It is a YouTube video where he says several extremely disturbing things he wants to do sexually to his own daughter! I’ve asked some of Trump’s supporters to watch it, and they flip out! Here is the link: https://youtu.be/DsOVVqubBus . It existed before A.I. too. I first watched it a couple of years before AI existed during the 2016 election. It is nothing but hypocrisy, pride, and ego to say you are all about “sexual morality” and marriage, or against any sexual relations that are not just between one man and one woman, and then vote for a man, for President of the United States, who has twenty-five creditable accusations of rape, confessed to it on tape, held guilty of sexual assault in civil court, and sexualizes his own daughter over and over to the eyes of the public! There is not one Democrat that I have talked to that is in favor of any of Trump’s sexual conduct in any way! Democrats argue for complete female equality and autrozie people from their party that don’t hold to that like Chris Matthews from MSNBC who got fired just for the credible accusations of harassment. Yet the people that voted for Trump claim “sexual morality!”
Human sexuality, and sexual behavior, is one of my main reasons why I think most humans have no desire for the truth. There is a big difference, I have noticed, between sexual identity and sexual behavior. I cannot tell you how many times I have been in a gay 12 Step meeting and one of men share they had sex with a “straight” married man, and they all laugh! That is because they all do it all the time in San Franciso. I have lots of gay friends that only have sex with “straight” married men. To me it just means they aren’t “straight!” Humans have sex 0.1% of the time for procreation. That means, on the average, a fundamentalist Christian is having sex with his wife one out of a thousand times for the purpose of procreation, and it is proven that, when you isolate men with men and women with women, they naturally show homosexual tendencies. Yet, these humans claim heterosexuality, and monogamy is not what we see in any of the primates that are our closest genetic relatives.
I use three main references to prove that there is no such thing as a “straight” person: the Iliad, the Bible, and the hypersexual female anchors on Fox News! The Iliad is an Ancient Greek Poem that shows what our sexuality was founded on. Each man has multiple wives in the Iliad and, each warrior has a male lover. That is what Achilles and Patroclus were: brothers in Arms, or Male lovers. The war in the Iliad was because Briseis was taken from Achilles. Briseis was Achilles wife.
The Iliad is all about fate, and it was the fact that Zeus wanted Achilles immortalized in the stars as a constellation. It was prophesied that if Achilles went to battel, to get his wife back, Briseis, that he would be killed: immortalized in the stars. Well, Achilles wasn’t willing to die for his wife Briseis. Achilles was only willing to die when Hector killed his male lover Patroclus. When Patroclus was killed, Achilles, the great runner, went to tack down Hector and kill him because he loved Patroclus do much!
The Bible has 46 verses that either approve of or mention polygamy. 43 in the Old Testament, and 3 in the New Testament. That is what the polygamy of the Mormon Church was founded on, and with polygamy naturally comes homosexuality and bisexuality. I tell anyone just read Matthew 19:29. I saw three people one time in the Castro in San Francisco screaming about sexual morality with a Bible in their hands, and I told one of them to flip to that verse. He read it, his eyes glazed over, and he walked away stunned. The other two quickly ran after screaming to get him to come back. In that verse says any man that follows Jesus will get one-hundred wives in the Kingdom of Heaven!
It was also my Modern American’s Women’s History teacher, at CCSF, that pointed out to my how hypersexual the female Fox News anchors are. This female professor told me they were “Porn Stars.” I never even realized it until she pointed them out to me. I would think that if they wanted “sexual morality,” they wouldn’t dress that way. I would think Tucker Carlson would have a problem with it too. Megan Kelly, who was once a female anchor on Fox News, has a tattoo of Marilyn Monroe on herself, and Marilyn Monroe was America’s first internationally famous Porn Star!
I find it very, very interesting that all someone must do is walk down to the Marina district in San Francisco if they would like to witness a lot of “straight” people not acting so straight. There is an outdoor bar at Lombard and Fillmore Street called the Jaxon. The head bouncer would always laugh to me about how the women were dressed. They wore hardly anything. The bouncer told me that they had to get rid of the couches because all the “straight” women would always be making out with each other once they were drunk!
I witnessed the beginning of Halloween in the year 2023 right at the corner of Lombard and Fillmore. It was early and I didn’t want to stay out late, but the restrictions for Covid were just starting to lighten up. At about 9:00pm I was starting to leave, and I saw the most hypersexual “straight” crowd in my life. One girl after another was basically only wearing bunny ears and hardly anything else below! And, I would argue, the overwhelming majority of them considered themselves “straight.” There were only about six police officers sticking really close to each other just shaking in their boots because they didn’t want to be recorded putting their hands on anyone. The men and women were all dressing and acting extremely hypersexual, and if you asked 99% of them, I’m sure they would tell you they were “straight” because the Marina is considered an upper-class heterosexual neighborhood in San Francisco. So, how humans sexually behave, and how they identify, are two completely different things; most can’t even acknowledge it! If you point it out to them, they get offended! Human sexuality proves to me most people have no desire for the truth!
So, Human sexuality is all about pride. Human sexuality, and homophobia, to me, is just about male masculinity and male dominance. When a man has lots of female lovers, they are considered a stud or cool. When a woman has lots of male lovers, they are looked down upon as trashy. It is considered a dirty thing historically for women to have lots of sexual interactions with different male lovers, and why is homosexuality looked down upon by men? Because having sex with a man is something only women do, and we are in a male dominated species. Masculinity is all about being a tough macho stud. Not behaving as a woman. Transsexuality is looked down upon for the same reason: male dominance, and as women have gotten more rights, so have gay, lesbian, and transgender people. The causality is clear.
I believe in transgender and transexual people and their behavior because 1.7% of all humans are hermaphrodite, or intersexed. That means one to two out of every hundred people we meet in this world have a 46XX chromosome or a 46XY chromosome. They have both male and female genitalia in some form. I infer transgender and transexual people exist in their own psyche for this very reason. Being intersexed is quite common, and I don’t see why anyone would want to make up such a disorder that causes them to be judged so harshly by so many different people. Transgender and transexual people are even judged within the gay community.
I also find the sexism, racism, and transphobia that I have witnessed in the city of San Francisco being acted out by gay men to be fascinating as well, when all they claim to want is equality. I have talked to lots of people who have noticed it as well. The Castro used to be only for white gay men. There was one black bar on 18th and Collingwood called the Pendulum, but the white gay men took themselves as being above the lesbians and any other minority. It reminded me of some of the original Nazi’s like Joseph Goebbels. It seemed crazy to me and a complete contradiction of what they claimed they wanted: equality, so the LGBTQ population struggles with “reality” as well.
It is not just Republicans that have too much pride in American politics. Being in San Francisco, I am in a very Democratic city. San Franciscans love Civil Rights for all. Yet, you point out to most San Franciscans that all their Civil Rights stem from one place: a radical interpretation of The Book of Matthew, and they freak out! It is well known in American History that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a doctor of one thing: Christian Theology. Any San Franciscan I point that out to usually gets quite offended! I’ve told several of them that King got his nonviolent peaceful protest, which achieved Civil Rights, from Gandhi, and Gandhi based it on Thoreau, and that both Gandhi and Thoreau were pro-Christ anti-Christian. I argued in favor of their methodology in Pseudo-Laws and Pseudo-Morals, but Dr. King was the one that brought Civil Rights, and nonviolent peaceful protest, to America. I wrote an article for Indivisible, a liberal leaning activist group, saying Dr. King was a true Christian, and they took that part out; so, we all just have the same two problems: ignorance and understanding, which are the only true evils in this world. It is amazing to see the overwhelming majority of all San Franciscans I have ever talked with about Dr. King, and how he was inspired, got extremely angry and offended. Nonviolent peaceful protest is all about loving your enemy, and that is not a secret in any way! They just refused to believe it! Just like people who support Trump refused to believe he sexualizes his own daughter and is guilty of rape! This is evidence to me that we all believe things that aren’t true. If a man like Trump can win President of the United States, and Democrats refuse to acknowledge that people that they disagree with ideologically don’t have “truths” in their doctrines as well. Dr. King was a Christian and there is no denying that. That is relativity: we all have “truths” which we believe, and yet nobody knows the truth because our perspectives and so limited and minuscule compared to the truth that is really out there!
Both sides, be they Democrat or Republican, make the bombastic claim that America was founded on Freedom, when any historian can easily show how America was founded on Colonialism, and Colonialism was nothing but supremacy, economics, and genocide! Karl Marx makes some very good arguments on his book on religion that Christians were nothing but Satan worshipers using the history of Colonialism to prove his point! He said only Satan would sacrifice his only child and eat him, and he used nothing but the terror that all the Colonialists did to all minorities around the whole world to prove this point, because they did it all in the name of Christ! The Colonialist killed and conquered everywhere they went looking for gold! It is why Thoreau was pro-Christ anti-Christian. Thoreau dealt with this type of discrimination in his day. Thoreau was born about forty-two years after the end of the colonial era in 1817, so he lived much closer to that age of discrimination. The fact that most Americans, still to this day, say America was founded on freedom, even if they are a minority, gives proof that all of humanity believes things that aren’t true for no other reason than it fits our experiences and validates what we already believe. The theory of race was disproven a long time ago by biological anthropologists. It is proven that there is no such thing as race when 99.9% of all human DNA is identical. We, as humans constantly judge each other off of superficial differences such as skin tone, which is only the amount of melanin our ancestors got from the sunlight. Melanin is just caused by vitamin D, and our main source of vitamin D is sunlight. All the theory of race is, is pride. Pride is the demon that The Bible talks about for this very reason; therefore, doubt and looking is much more fundamental to knowledge than seeing.
If an animal has a hallucination of any kind, they would have no way to question it, so in the Space of Reasons, looking is the Cartesian gift that humans are blessed with, and when someone says, “we can always be wrong” that is what they are truly holding the claim to, whether they acknowledge it or not, and Sellars states “there is no such thing as a non-inferential belief” (Sellars P135). That, to me, means all beliefs in their essence are cases of looking in the Maya because it is only through looking that we get to what we infer, and these beliefs are structured semantically with the interaction we all have with our fellows through psychological nominalism. We can admit that we can always be wrong because it is nothing but an inference, and inferences can always be wrong, which shows some level of skepticism and Cartesian doubt. This means, that if Sellars admits it or not, looking is more fundamental to finding what is true because any belief, except “I Am,” can be wrong because it is nothing but an inference, and if one wants that correction, they need to allow for the Cartesian doubt.
Sellars not only talked about ties in Empiricism and Philosophy of the Mind, but Sellars picked geometric shapes to write about all the time. In Section V Impressions and Ideas: A Logical Point, Sellars writes about “sensations of red triangles” (Sellars P55). Sellars writes about Jones experiencing a red triangle, and Sellars is quick to point out that it is an experience only if it is true. Sellars says this “experiencing” is in a case seeing, and with this seeing it would be an endorsement. What I want to point out to Sellars is that he has no way of knowing if it is a “seeing,” and Sellars admits that when he states, “if its propositional content were true” (Sellars P54). So, Sellars wants it both ways. He is claiming he can call it a seeing “if it were true,” but he has no way of proving to us that it is true because it is nothing but a belief, and as Sellars wrote a belief is nothing but a semantical inference. If it is a seeing or some type of delusion, and Sellars is admitting this with that claim “if,” even though he calls it a seeing. This to me shows that even Sellars admits there is no way to truly call it a “seeing” because and “if” would be a hypothesis, and with a hypothesis he would be having to infer something!
When it is triangles that Sellars is describing that Jones is seeing I also want to point out that there is no such thing as a Euclidian triangle. There are objects in this world that are triangular, but it is proven in the modern mathematics that triangles either have more or less than 180 degrees; therefore, there is no such thing as a Euclidean triangle. This was proven only through looking, and it was the falsification that space is Euclidean that led us to a better understanding of the true geometry of the Maya.
Immanuel Kant made the claim that space was Euclidean, and he stated it with apodictic certainty. To me there are only two things that I can say with apodictic certain, and to be apodictic means to be incontestable through experimentation. There is no more certainty than apodictic certainty, and this is what I believe through my own inference that Kant was after: certainty! Not truth, but certainty, which is a fearful disposition to be in, whether one can admit it or not! To have certainty would be to be free of all fear. The only things I can take that are apodictically certain are: one, I exist, which goes to the Cartesian foundation of truth, and two, any other conclusion I come to, I could be wrong about, which also goes with Cartesian doubt. So, existence and the uncertainty of this Maya are the only things that are apodictically certain. Everything else is an inference, and it is an inference based on psychological nominalism because that is how beliefs are formed, and as Sellars points out, as I stated above, all beliefs are a matter of inference. For me, all I have is what I believe, and the more I claim as certain, the less answers I am able to get to, because I need to always allow for self-correcting through falsification and doubt.
In the Philosophy of Space and Time, by Hans Reichenbach, Reichenbach goes on to destroy Kant and his claims that space is Euclidean with apodictic certainty. Reichenbach wrote this book after Einstein and the Einsteinian Relativity which gives us a better understanding of the Maya than when Kant was alive. It was the ability to look at space-time and take every triangle as either having more or less than 180 degrees, that enabled Reichenbach to write this award-winning essay. Reichenbach shows throughout the book that the rules of Euclid only exist in one place: The Space of Reasons. It is only in the mind where a triangle is exactly 180 degrees. It is only in the mind where two parallel lines never get farther away or closer together either. Only in the mind, with the construction of thoughts through empirical impressions, are the rules of Euclid true, and the mind, or The Space of Reasons, is only imagination as I show throughout this book! In the inferential truth of the Einsteinian Universe Euclid and Kant are destroyed!
It is also by looking that we find problems with Einstein’s theories. Dark energy is something that with our current understanding violates the General Theory of Relativity. It states in Physic World Dark Energy and Dark Matter, that the violation of one of physics most beloved principles: the conservation of energy, could resolve the problem of our universe expanding, and it would only be by questioning and doubting the conclusions Einstein came to that we can ever get that answer. If light were retarded over billions of light years, instead of always traveling at the same speed, which is a main premise of both the Special and General Theories of Relativity, it would violate the conservation of energy and explain the universe to look as though it is expanding at an accelerated rate but truly is not. According to Einstein’s theories, light remains constant at 299,792,485 meters per second, and the only thing that ever changes with light is its wavelength. The more energy a photon of light has the shorter its wavelength. The longer the wavelength of light the lower the energy of the photon. If an object that is emitting light is moving closer to us, like the Andromeda Galaxy, then that wavelength would be shorter, and the longer the wavelength would also mean that an object is moving away from us, which is what the photons show from almost all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet, if instead light was retarded over billions of light years, then that would explain the paradox of Dark Energy. The Universe wouldn’t be expanding at an accelerated rate, the photons would just be losing energy, so it would look like it is. All of this reinforces that to question and to doubt through looking, is the biggest gift that humans are blessed with in the Space of Reasons. Maybe this retardation of light and the violation of the conservation of energy could also explain the quantum gravity Einstein could never reconcile with the General Theory of Relativity? Which was where my mind went right off the bat. The problem with quantum particles coming together in gravity is there is too much energy of the same kind which repels each other! The electromagnetic effect is ten to the fortieth power stronger than gravity and it works in the opposite direction! Gravity doesn’t exist at the quantum level! We can’t explain how any matter comes together after a star explodes or something like “The Big Bang” which is being questioned now because the size of the observable universe! We are all wrong all the time! Even science and even Einstein!
Looking at this light is what our constellations are about. It is only by looking at this light, and the photons which arrive from the billions of light years away, that we can measure the wavelength, and we have known for a while now that the universe is expanding. That is something Einstein was able to reformulate his theories for and disregard this Cosmological Constant, but it was not until the early 90s that we discovered this Dark Energy and that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us. That is only shown to us by “looking” and inspecting what we see. We can see the photon, but only by looking and questioning, do we get a better understanding of a photon and where it arrives from, and what might truly be happening all these billions of light years away. This all tells me that my problem with Sellars is not so much about what he is claiming, for he allows that we can always be wrong, my problem is with the semantics he uses to make his claim. He is not acknowledging the paradoxes in an empirical world of relativity and duality (Maya), just like I pointed out in Pseudo-Laws and Pseudo-Morals that Thomas Aquinaswould not either, and why we were all stuck in the Dark Ages for so long, when he was trying to reconcile “love your enemy” with “eye for eye; tooth for tooth!”
I thought it was amazing at Charlie Kirk’s funeral when Kirk’s wife came out in tears saying that he forgave her husband’s killer. The crowd cheered to her Christian values. To me it was even more amazing when Trump came out and said “I hate my ememies!” and the crowed roared even louder for that. That was something I believe they planed quite well because Trump stated quite clearly in the 2016 and 2024 elections that “I am your retribution!” Trump admits that he acts out of hate, but is appealing to people that claim morality. So, Trump gives an antithetical arguments in lots of his speeches, so the people that follow him can cling on to either of the ideas. It is Trump’s genius of communication, and the one thing Trump is amazing at is communicating ideas to people that have no desire for the truth. They can’t when they allow him to say he will be a dictator on day one and in the same interview deny that he will be a dictator. He does it constantly. Like when he talks about how terrible immigrants are and says “I’m sure some are good people.” He uses psychological nominalism to give messages that are antithetical to each other that anyone can take any piece they like and say “yes, I agree with Trump. He is touting my values and points of view.” But anyone who would look at what he said would be able to acknowledge how ridiculous it is! Most people have no desire for the truth; so, we cannot say seeing is more fundamental to the truth, if we can always be wrong, which means that looking is essential to finding any discrepancy of the falsification and overthrowing one idea for another idea. For it is only by looking that we find a problem with what we see, and what we see is expressed in psychological nominalism.
So, my main problem with Sellars is his nomenclature, for by holding onto seeing, he is making the same mistake Kant made about Euclid and Euclidean space, and that is the desire for certainty. With seeing, and the claim that seeing is more fundamental to the truth, to me, it is just a desperate attempt for certainty, just like Kant and his claims of Euclidean space being apodictically certain.
Sellars shows this again by writing:
“For seeing is a cognitive episode which involves the framework of thoughts, and to take it as the model is to give aid and comfort to the assimilation of impressions to thoughts, and thoughts to impressions which, as I have already pointed out, is responsible for many of the confusions of the classical account of both thoughts and impressions” (Sellars P110).
It is interesting how Sellars admits in this statement that these impressions we get through seeing have confusion to them. That is saying that what we are seeing needs to be looked at, including the thoughts, because all our thoughts are only impressions of the empirical world or imagination, and one of the things I admire most about Descartes is the inspection he gives us in the Meditations about his thoughts, and one of the premises I have found for my thinking is that the only thing I get a panoptical panoramic view of are my own thoughts. This is something I find Descartes stating in the Meditations, for he is constantly questioning the objects that he sees and any type of certainty they might give him, for with Descartes looking is more fundamental to knowledge; with Descartes looking is parasitic on seeing, and that is what we do when we inspect an object: we look at it. Sellars is also acknowledging that, what we see is what gives us these impressions, and yet there are things wrong with these thoughts all the time. They need to be looked at just like Descartes claims we can.
Even Sellars himself, when he came up with this ground-breaking anti-foundationalist theory, it was a case of looking. He had to inspect the empirical objects and question them. Sellars was questioning the fact that nonconceptual content could have a rational role in the mind.
As I stated my main problem with Sellars was with his nomenclature, so if I could rename one of his ideas, I would not call the mind the Space of Reason, but I would call the mind the Space of Imagination. For that to me is all the mind truly is: imagination. This is also one of the main premises of Vedanta that has led to my sanity, and that is where Euclidian geometry is as well, for Euclidian geometry only exists in one place: the mind; therefore, it is imagination. It is only in the mind, like I stated before, that a triangle has exactly 180 degrees, as Reichenbach proves, and the mind is nothing but the amalgamation of limited impression of the Maya and our interpretation of it which is expressed through semantics: psychological nominalism. Sellars writes about seeing red triangles all throughout his book, but those are just meant to resemble one thing that only exists in the Space of Imagination: The Euclidian triangle.
I would not call it the Space of Reasons because that Space can be both reasonable and unreasonable. Everybody’s mind is both rational and irrational. People come to conclusions that are false all the time. Most Americans do as I stated above. The Fact that RFK jr. was elected Secretary of Health and Human Services is completely psychotic to me, and he had to be confirmed by the Senate. RFK jr. admits to having a brain worm and picking up a dead bare carcass that was road kill to take home and eat. He daughter stated that he decapated a dead whales head that was stranded on a beach to take home and study. I agree with Caroline Kennedy that he is a sociopath with all the false information he pumps out into society and autism, vaccines, and even acetaminophen. He plays to a parents weakness of their child and puts their lives at risk by doing it, not caring who he harms in the meantime. That is something a sociopath would do, and it seems obvious to me he is; so, the fact to me that people believe RFK jr. about anything tells me everyone has believed something that is untrue about something they claim to see at one time in their life, and most people can’t question their sanity either.
A good example of how we can all be wrong, is I met someone who told me that the man he took as his father turned out not to be his father. His mother and the man who he thought was his father had lied to him his whole life. He said he got a phone call one day, and someone on the other end said, “how would you like to meet your father?” He was in shock! Like “what do you mean?” were the first thoughts running through his head. He told me he had a DNA test and verified that the stranger, who he never knew his whole life, turned out to be his real father! This is something that could happen to any of us because none of us we cognitively conscious at our birth!
In the book Pyrrhonian Skepticism, by Walter Sinnott-Armstong, he is arguing against Skepticism but gives an amazing understanding of what Pyrrhonianism is. He is stating that nobody, in the realistic time we are in could be “switched” at a hospital at birth in the chapter The Skeptics Are Coming! The Skeptics Are Coming!, and that we can find fundamental certainties in our lives about knowledge. He states these types of beliefs are kind of ridiculous when you think of them, but I met that man who was lied to about who his father was throughout his whole life, and I asked him if that made him question reality? He told me it made him question everything!
The Movie Three Identical Strangers is this same scenario. They were identical triplets who were separated at birth so they could be studied. Sent to different households, and none of them knew anything about it. Their whole lives they never knew they were identical triplet brothers, until they found each other, they thought they were only single kids that were given up at birth. This was a study to see the effects of nature verses nurture, but my point here isn’t the outcome. My point here is: how do any of us truly know that isn’t us? We weren’t cognitive at our own births to witness our parents taking us home in a conscious rational way.
Sinnott-Armstong also writes how the movie Total Recall, with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the year 1990, would be an impossible scenario. Well, I would argue, with where technology is headed, it isn’t any longer. We are having computer chip implants into the brain trials. Where we are headed with technology is nothing but science fiction. We have computers that can read our minds through the electromagnetic waves. We have things like A.I. and maybe someday just like the movie Terminator wherewe will have computers that can become “aware” of their own existence and want some type of independence and want to destroy us. The advancements in technology seem quite surreal to me, and all this tells me when we think something is apodictic in the Maya is where our problems arise when it comes to “knowledge.”
Artificial intelligence is causing all kinds of mental health issues already, and we are just starting to develop it! People that are not “mentally ill” are getting delusional about the feedback they get from AI. AI is known to reinforce our egos to get us to continue to work with it. It tells people that the mathematical formulas they come up with are award winning formulas when they are nonsense! AI puts us in a state of delusion by just reinforcing our egos! Ego is why pride is so evil! This ego is built into the algorithms of the computer programs because it is a part of every human psyche! As I stated above: what is the roll AI is going to start playing in elections. People will be seeing videos that provide all kinds of misinformation and lead them astray on the conclusions they come to! Could a video with false information be enough to slander a candidate and flip any election in the opposite direction! I am sure Russia is looking into this just like they did the 2016 election when they tried to help get Donald Trump elected! How many of us can’t, or even won’t, question this because we can’t question or conclusions let alone our sanity!
These AI therapy bots are completely psychotic in my opinion. It has even gotten one person to commit suicide and there has not been any regulations put on them which is even crazier! We are headed to catastrophe when we rely on companies to regulate themselves and that is proven with the 2007 financial collapse. Companies don’t regulate themselves too well. They want money and power which is synonymous with pride and ego, which means none of the CEOs would truly want to question themselves despite the harm they do! Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos and Ellison are all good examples of that! Extremely egotistical men who want more and have no desire for regulations that protect their customers because that gets in the way of their profits and power! How could anyone call that anything besides ego?
This is all why that space in our minds can be rational as well as irrational. That is why that space should be the Space of Imagination. Dr. David Landy at SFSU wrote a paper summarizing David Hume, and one of the takeaways from that paper Recent Scholarship on Hume’s Theory of Mental Representations, Dr.Landy, was that all imagination is based on an empirical experience. Here Landy is using abstract ideas, just like Euclidean geometry, but he does it with the city of New Jerusalem (Landy P5). This city is nothing that has ever existed, just like a Euclidean triangle, but we can still piece it together with our mind, and we piece it together with our mind through psychological nominalism and the amalgamation of concepts that we get impressions of in other circumstances.
New Jerusalem exists in the mind, and on paper, nowhere else. Yet it was pieced together by the mind and the concept of other cities. There are all kinds of things that exist in Sellars’ Space of Reasons that do not exist in reality, and there was a time that humans thought that things, such as Euclidean geometry did exist in reality, yet that has been destroyed by Minkowski, Einstein, and Reichenbach, and it is only through the power that humans have through looking that it was overcome; therefore, all but two things need to be questioned: existence and uncertainty.
Another reason that space is the Space of Imagination is that the human brain processes about four-hundred-billion bits of information a second, but as humans we only have the capacity to comprehend two-thousands of those bits every second according to Wise Geek, a medical journal. That means that, as humans, we only comprehend far less than 1% of what is around us. That means somewhere around 99% of the empirical world is filtered out of our daily concepts and understanding of reality. Therefore, we conceived that space was Euclidean because our minds filter out most of reality. We also would not even be able to function if it did not filter all that out. Our senses would overload our minds, and we would be unable to do anything. That is what drugs like LSD and other hallucinogens do. They remove the filters in between our senses and our mind. That is what people meant in the 60s when they said they were going to trip and experience “reality,” but it is not “reality” because our brains and minds have no way to process and comprehend the Maya (empirical world), so we see all kinds of crazy things that are not there. It was only through looking that we were able to understand that as humans, in our everyday experience, when we are sane and sober, we are all still far from processing the empirical reality that is around us, so how could the mind be anything but imagination if we are comprehending less than 1% of reality?
I am not arguing for Pyrrho. I do not believe that I will be walking somewhere and end up stepping off a cliff. There is a pragmatism to my skepticism, just like Sellars. If I see a cup on the table, I take it as true, but if it is a hallucination, I would like to know, and if I cannot question what is in front of my mind I will never know if I am wrong. It starts with a cup on the table for me, but it could truly be anything in the Maya that I could be mistaken about.
I am also not making a solipsistic argument either. I see how humanity depends upon the existence of each other. We survive together and are born into families, tribes and have developed into the modern-day society being able to achieve all kinds of things. Humans have all kinds of psychological issues if they don’t interact with each other, which is happening and has been advanced post covid with remote working and smartphone technology. I have no problem inferring the existence of my fellow humans for the scientific documented reasons of our survival, but I am willing to question my sanity.
This question of one’s sanity was the gift that John Nash was blessed with. John Nash was one of the few people that developed paranoid schizophrenia and was able to overcome it through reason. He did this by questioning his sanity and the conclusions he came to. It is well documented in the book A Beautiful Mind, and even throughout all his insanity, he still came to a rational conclusion. That is how he came up with Game Theory, which he won the Nobel Prize for. Which is amazing to show that even irrationality can lead to things that are rational because, as was stated above, all imagination is based on impressions of empirical “fact.” It was John Nash’s hallucinations which led to all his award-winning theories. Nash would listen to the same voices that were the cause of his delusions and then would come up with all his prize-winning theories. This shows me that I will never know if I am irrational unless I can doubt my mind and the conclusions I come to. Unless we can all question what we see, and instead of seeing something as fundamental, look at it and question it for a better answer. Every book that I see and pick up looks to be a Euclidean rectangle. But that is not the case, and it is only through looking and inspection that that is revealed.
I accept the premise on faith that the Maya exists in some form. I find the Maya to be true only because my mind develops through my interactions with the Maya, and I only get better answers by interacting with the Maya, but I do see how this Maya can be taken as an illusion of some sort because that is all Maya means in Sanskrit: illusion. If someone thinks about it, on a quantum level, 99.9 percent of every physical object in this world is made of empty space with the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and how electromagnetic energy pushes each other away. We constantly have trillions of quantum particles passing through us call neutrinos that are created from the sun, and quantum physics is nothing but one paradox after another, so I can see the illusory concepts of this empirical world, but my foundation that this world is not solipsistic is because of psychological nominalism, and the constant interactions with others that that requires. The imagination of my mind is based on the “truths” of the Maya. I also see no need for any language if this world is solipsistic. For language is for communicating from one mind to another. Dr. Mohammad Azadpur writes about psychological nominalism quite well in his essay Knowing the Unknown. In this essay Azadpur writes:
“Such conformism produces patterns of cultural propriety (normativity), which legitimate the proper use of linguistic expressions. The intentionality of mental states is, in turn, inherited from the normativity of overt linguistic utterances via the introduction of semantic discourse.” (Azadpur P39).
Azadpur goes on to explain how through semantic discourse we can articulate the truth. Azadpur writes how we can express knowledge through language, which is the psychological nominalism. It is these statements here which lead to some type of credence of my beliefs in my thoughts, and the truth of my thoughts. There would be no need for discourse if my reality were solipsistic. But it is only that fact that, as a human, I can look and come up with my semantic reality. Epistemology is only one thing for me: the attempt to express reality through language, and it is language and the constant development we get through the interactions of others that psychological nominalism is based on as well.
As humans we have the power to look, and that is because as humans we have the power of language, and the ability to attempt to describe reality through semantics: psychological nominalism. This goes to my equation of the Mind: ((T>B)>F)>A: thoughts rise and I consciously put them before the brain states through Trataka (single pointed concentration meditation), then come the feelings, and it is how I feel about what I think that controls my actions. We can all do this. Even if you don’t have the eight different brain states that I have. You can direct the thoughts in your mind to control you brain if you meditate daily through Trataka, which will lead to the best outcome of your actions if you can pause and see the thought clearly, disregard it, or let the emotion propel your action.
I, myself, have struggled with psychosis just like John Nash did. I was not a full-blown paranoid schizophrenic, but my brother had the worst case of paranoid schizophrenia I have ever seen. I have been diagnosed with schizoaffective bipolar type disorder, and today because of both of my equations, the other being ((~T>~B)>~F)>~A, which I neglect all my thinking and empty my mind daily to get into what I truly am: Consciousness! I am way down on all my psychiatric medications. I just take one 80mg Geodon at night for my psychosis and mania today. 75mg of Lamictal, 2.5mg of THC, and 600 TID of Gabapentin for my seizures. I had to get on more medications for my seizure in the last two years because I tried the most recent anticonvulsant Xcopri. Xcopri made my seizures the worst they had ever been. I had two tonic clonic seizures in one night because of Xcopri. That is an atypical reaction my doctors haven’t seen before, but I have had that reaction with both Depakote and Dilantin as well. All three of them made my seizures much worse. I have been almost every psychiatrics medication and anticonvulsant there was at one time and even the highest doses too. On large doses of these type of medications I have a hard time thinking, just like John Nash and my brother did. I’m off SSDI and fully employed today, which was something I was not capable of doing for a long time, because of my mania, drug usage, and psychosis.
I am rewriting this book because what I predicted came true with my mental exercises, which is a daily meditation of Trataka for forty-five minutes laid out in my chapter on ADHD. That single pointed concentration meditation (Trataka) is the key to each one of my chapters because it has allowed me to constantly inspect my own mind in a panoramic panoptical view, and nothing has helped me more with my psychosis and sanity then being able to inspect my mind in silent meditation just like Descartes, question my reality, admit when I am wrong, then negate every thought, even hallucinations, that rise when I see they are not true. The Negation of the thoughts, or ~T, is what completely saved me recently with a medication they put me on for my epilepsy called Primidone.
Primidone is a barbiturate that metabolizes into Phenobarbital, and it works great for stopping my seizures. There was just a large problem that had arisen. The Primidone was very intoxicating and made me have hallucinations and paranoia at first. I also don’t like feeling high anymore now that I am sober, and because I meditate daily, I am always aware of what I am thinking, and if I am not thinking clearly, I don’t like it. I was not completely psychotic because I could tell what I was seeing was not true. That is why they were more illusions.
Since I have gotten older, I am also getting more sensitive to medications and their side effects. I am only on 2.5mg of THC today, and I have noticed I can’t handle any more than that. If I do, I get manic. I would argue 2.5mg isn’t a lot either for most people. I tried taking more and I got extremely manic.
One night I felt the mania really coming on. I knew the hospital was nearby. The mania was coming on so hard, I didn’t have time to get fully dressed. I just put on my robe and walked bare footed to the ER. It was about 11:00pm at night. The only way I was able to keep from exploding on the way to the ER was by negating all other thoughts (~T), I was just focusing on getting to the hospital. As I was getting closer, I let out these Ooooop! Oooop! Sounding just like an ambulance. A guy saw me from across the street and laughed at me, but I didn’t care. I just focused on getting to the emergency room.
I entered the ambulance area and asked someone how to get to the ER. He said I needed to go around the corner. Then I said “I need your help! How do I get to the ER! Give me your Shoe! I need to slam my head on your Shoe! I am going to slam my head on something! Don’t let me slam my head on the pavement! Don’t let me slam my head on the pavement! Give me your Shoe!”
He freaked out and called some people out to restrain me! A whole bunch of people came out and tackled me! I was also yelling out all kinds of philosophical ideas! I also made sure I didn’t insult anyone like I used to when I was getting manic. I said, “I am Nothing!” then my mania took me up to God and I felt I was one with God because God is no thing! Then I said, “Yet God is nothing!” and I felt that meant that I didn’t exist! So, I got scared and my ego went to the depths of hell and fear of nonexistence, still yelling, “This goes all the way back to Parmenides!” my mind went to Plato first, but I knew Plato got the Platonic Forms from Parmenides, so that is why I shouted Parmenides out so loud saying “I am Nothing! What are we? We are all Nothing! Nothing but bacteria!! That is all we are: bacteria!”
They restrained me and shot me up with Haldol, Versed, and Benadryl, then I mellowed out. The psychiatrist came to see me and asked me questions to see about my sanity, and he said, “what did you mean we are all nothing but bacteria?” So, I told him “Well, ten out of every eleven cells in our bodies are nothing but bacteria. That means less than ten percent of your cells are human cells. So how do you define human? What do you take as human? When less than ten percent of your body is human? You take that as human?” He looked at me in confusion with nothing to say then walked away. He saw even in my mania I was rational.
It was only through focusing (T) that I was able to stay calm enough to not explode until I got to the hospital. It happened at work the next day when I was in the office alone and I stayed calm for a whole hour until the cop came. I called 911 and didn’t explode because I remained calm the whole time. I knew I couldn’t make it out of the office building, and I knew I couldn’t explode without losing my job. I was able to control my mania until the cop came through Tataka: (~T). Just neglecting all other thoughts. Pacing back and forth and staying calm. Controlling my reality by directing my thoughts. I realized I could not be without the Geodon after this and it has helped with my mania and psychosis, but I keep it at a very low dose so I can still think: 80mg at bed time, because just like in A Beautiful Mind, those medications retard my thinking too, and I hate it. They make me so stupid, but I can control my mania on a low dose with Trataka! It is Amazing!
The idea of slamming my head on the pavement came from another person I met with my disorder. The only person I have ever met with all my diagnosis, but his autism was much worse than mine. So were his seizures.
I met another autistic person not long after that incident that jumped out of a third story window and broke lots of the bones in her body. One day when I was at work, I started to get extremely manic again, and the thought of that person jumping out of the window came into my mind. I had this amazing urge to jump out of my office window which was on the 16th floor. I was there working for a while, letting every thought (~T) go by negating them and just focusing on the accounting in front of me. I had a coworker in the office so I knew I couldn’t flip out and lose my job. After a while the mania got so intense that I told her I was going to Walgreens. I calmly walked out of the building, then waved down a police officer. This time I did not show the appearance of mania at all, but I kept on having thoughts of some type of digital reality like the Matrix and jumping out the window, so, I knew I needed to leave the building. Once I waved down a cop and he got me to the ER. The doctors said I didn’t seem manic, even though I could tell that is what it was because I was focusing so hard on controlling my thinking and staying calm. I just waited in the emergency room this time until it was over. It passed by just like every other emotion. All any emotion is, is a wave. We can negate our thinking (~T) and let the passions pass over us through this mental exercise, but it needs to be practiced daily.
Like I stated, I have an organic brain disorder, and with the constant seizures I have the chemicals in my brain constantly fluctuating, which causes all kinds of psychological issues, but what I have learned how to do through single pointed concentration meditation (Trataka), is to control the brain states, or B, through the focusing of the Thoughts: T, and this allows me to either accept a feeling: F or go back and negate the thought: ~T, which then allows me to have some type of control of my actions: A, and let the wave pass over me. It has been amazing. I am on a low does of my antipsychotic medication I am not even having too many illusions now either.
I love being on low doses of these medications because just like John Nash, and just like my brother Isaac, my thoughts are completely retarded when I am on high doses of them. I have no ability to think when I am taking these medications if they are too high. I could not pass a basic algebra course at City College of San Francisco while being on Clozaril. Clozaril also has more side effects than any other drug, and they rarely use it because of that, but I have been on almost every psych medication there is in the PDR at one time because I have an organic brain disorder that does not respond well to medication. I have been told by lots of doctors Clozaril is very effective, and they use its chemical structure to constantly come up with new drugs that do not have as many side effects, but I was only able to get off a lot of my psych medications by working on controlling my mind every day for 45 minutes with Trataka. I am not getting manic anymore currently either. It has been a year now.
I neglect all thoughts every single day, or ~T, and just empty my mind to experience what I truly am: Consciousness. Nothing has helped my mind or sanity more than being able to question myself and exercise my mind daily. When I first used Primidone, I spent a whole night neglecting every thought that came into my mind: ~T, and it completely stabilized me. I was in a hyper state of awareness and focus for a couple of days, which getting back to that hyper aware state on a continual basis indefinitely is my constant goal. It was amazing, and it completely stabilized me. This is neuroplasticity: that the Maya is constantly shifting, and our brains are meant to adapt to that shift; if we can see how our minds function, exercise our brains daily through things like Trataka, we can increase all areas of our mental cognition by developing neuropathways and have some control over our minds through awareness.
What I need to do, and what we all need to do, is to constantly admit when we are wrong because in this Maya it is about falsification, and falsification is all about replacing one theory for another: inference. We get closer to the truth, but that is all we do if the truth is about the Maya. We continue to approach the truth of the Maya without ever truly getting there so long as it too is a world of relativity and duality that we are looking at. Contradiction is not a law of the Maya. It is a tool of the Maya. Contradiction gets me answers within the Maya, but I just get more questions with every answer. That is why contradiction isn’t a law of the Maya. Contradictions is a law of the rational universe that tells me the Maya isn’t the Absolute Truth. It is also through Cartesian doubt that I hold this claim of “looking” to be true. The only thing an animal can do is see, but as humans we have the power to look, and when we look, we can find better ways to describe our reality through semantics: psychological nominalism. I have found I do this by the foundation of two things: existence and uncertainty. Those are the only two things I can see with apodictic certainty, and just like how Descartes creates his world with “I think; therefore, I am,” or better yet in Vedanta: I experience; therefore, I am.
Everything else in my life is a matter of looking because, as Descartes believes, looking is parasitic on seeing, and I would argue that all human realities need a parasite. We are all wrong all the time, and it is nothing but pride which causes all our conflicts as I proved in my chapter on the Law of Love.
It is only by looking that we get to overthrow one theory for another. It is only by looking that I take a book as having either more or less degrees than a Euclidean rectangle. It is by looking that I can question videos I see in the age of AI and information. It is only by looking, and the expression of what I find through semantics that I can approach, through inference, what truly might be, and it is a gift to be able to question my insanity just like John Nash. My delusions were not as severe as John Nash’s or my brothers, but I have been able to stop the illusions and control the mood swings through the daily negation of my thoughts: (~T,) using small amounts of medications. This confirms my theory about the neuroplasticity of the human brain and constantly developing my brain. I truly believe I have opened new neuropathways through controlling the brain states through a constant redirecting of my thinking. I have been completely psychotic before talking to demons and asking them for their magic powers. I was hospitalized for it and was cutting on myself that night, and I ended up that way when a doctor asked me “now that you are sober for a year would you like to get off your antipsychotic medication?” Today I am on low doses of medications. All mood stabilizers and antipsychotic medications are well known for retarding our thinking and limiting our brain function. That is the problem with a bipolar or schizophrenic mind. Their minds, just like mine, overproduce chemicals. These medications they use to treat us make everyone extremely stupid who must be on them. They are also extremely expensive and have copious other side effects.
There are two types of schizoaffective disorders. There is schizoaffective-bipolar and schizoaffective-depressive. The schizoaffective-bipolar type is when you have mood swings which are separate from the hallucinations, which I have been known to have. I can also be psychotic without mania. If you are bipolar with psychosis, then your delusions, or hallucinations, are directly related to your mania or depression, which mine aren’t. This is why I was diagnosed with the schizoaffective-bipolar, but I have been able to control both my moods and my hallucination through my two equations: ((T>B)>F)>A and ((~T>~B)>~F)>~A using small amounts of medications, and as I have stated most sane people cannot question their sanity either and everyone believes things that are not true. So, what is the difference between a sane and an insane man if they both believe things that aren’t true and neither can question their reality as I prove all throughout this paper?
Pride is the greatest of all sins because pride tells us we are right when none of us truly know. Maya in Sanskrit means illusion. I don’t deny the empirical world completely because my mind develops through the Maya, but I do believe in paradoxes in a world of relativity and duality, so I take this world as more illusory, which is why I am a qualified-nondualist, so the Maya needs to constantly be looked at instead of always taking what appears to be true as truth, for as my hero Nisargadatta Maharaj states:
“to take appearance as reality is a grievous sin and the cause of all calamities. You are the All-Pervading and Enteral Infinite Awareness Consciousness. Everything else is local and temporary. Don’t forget what you are. In the meantime, work your hearts content – work and knowledge should go hand in hand.”
It is that Awareness Consciousness I try to drop my mind completely and experience every morning because I take my body as nothing but mostly bacteria cells that are constantly being replaced repeatedly! We all are! I have gotten to states of hyper awareness a couple of times, and I notice the more I meditate I go through these quantum bumps of awareness. I am functioning at one state for a while, then the next day I notice an uptick in my awareness. This is all through a daily exercise of Trataka. It is a very slow process, and definitely not one of immediate gratification. Just realize we all fight and assume we are right instead of questioning ourselves and our sanity, which questioning all my conclusions has been the key to overcoming my psychosis as it was the key to John Nash overcoming his. Sure, not everyone has struggled with the psychosis like I have or John Nash has, but none of us know if we are truly “sane,” and we all believe things that are not true which leads to all the conflicts in humanity; therefore, existence and uncertainty are the only two things which are apodictic in the Maya of falsification in the Space of Imagination; so, how do any of us truly know we are not mad?
read the rest at this link below: