Anton Rogachevski

@UnbornTao Yep so accurate 🤣

I believe we can explain spirituality in philosophical terms, which would make this profound and useful field more accessible while reducing unnecessary friction with rational thinkers. That's what I always try to do - to build a bridge for those at Stage Orange that are ready for the next level and want a no bullshit approach. I'm currently working on a theory that will explicate all of the most important aspects of spirituality. As I'm working on it I would love to have a discussion with you and to help make it better and move it forward, so I'm very excited to share it with you and I would love for you to check out the current most updated version on my blog. ----------- Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework Introduction The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. It also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths. It avoids collapsing into idealism, and there remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory. We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary. So let’s dig in, shall we? Keep reading in the blog for the most updated version.

I'm very excited to present an official edition of the essay, though I'm sure I'll keep working and refining it even further, it's pretty solid as it is. Enjoy, and I would love to hear your thoughts on how to improve it further!

@MightyMind Thank you dear reader, I would love to hear what you think. How could I improve it more?

Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework Before we begin you might want to check out the introductory essay from which this theory stems, as it is more direct and less technical than this one is going to be, and also you will see the thought process under the hood that was involved in developing this theory. Introduction The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. While it also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths, it avoids collapsing into idealism. There remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory. We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary. So let's dig in, shall we? ---- Update: For the sake of discussion I'd made the essay's draft available so you may read more if you like.

A very powerful enlightenment experience disrupts the ability to doubt. The intensity is convincing the brain and the “enlightened” is so convinced that now he has it all figured out, as it was all directly experienced by him. For this reason I suggest to be very careful with powerful psychedelics. In non-dual experience, the usual sense of separation between self and world dissolves, revealing a direct feeling of infinite unity and boundlessness. This experience feels profoundly vast, timeless, and all-encompassing – qualities traditionally associated with divinity. Because the mind naturally interprets unfamiliar experiences through familiar concepts, it often labels this unity as “God.” The intense emotional impact of such states further reinforces the sense of encountering something sacred or ultimate. From a meta-phenomenological perspective, this does not confirm an external God’s existence, but rather situates “God” as the felt substance of experience itself – an infinite, divine-like reality encountered within consciousness. This view honors the power of the experience while maintaining humility about its ontological meaning. There’s a subtle fallacy in the yearning for something beyond the ordinary – a belief that true reality must be more mystical, more profound, than what appears mundane. So when someone has a mystical experience, it often feels like confirmation: Ah, this is what reality really is! But this leap is psychological, not evidential. The extraordinary feel of the experience seduces the mind into projecting that extraordinariness onto the fabric of existence itself. The intensity or beauty of an experience does not determine its ontological status. The mind is evolutionarily tuned to treat powerful sensations as meaningful, but this is a heuristic – not a reliable truth-detection mechanism. Mystical experiences are vivid, coherent, and emotionally overwhelming, but this doesn’t mean they describe an ultimate reality. They may reveal something about the nature of experience, not what exists outside of it. Example: A psychedelic user sees a fractal entity that feels “more real than real.” The brain, overwhelmed by coherence and novelty, infers: This must be the real world, and my everyday life is the illusion. But this is emotional inference, not careful epistemology.

@UnbornTao By the look of it, we agree on most things I do love to contemplate very much to reach a state of strong doubt that is similar to the one a Zen practice is aiming for. Besides, I can't just throw it all away, it's too much fun! Ps- My new theory is finally ready as a first official edition. yay!

I'm very skeptical about the ability of a breakthrough to get you accurate knowledge of theses subjects. Here's a new little addition to the theory that might clarify things: Dualism is essential to this framework because it requires us to see the world through two lenses at once, each valid within its own domain. From the perspective of the inferred, noumenal world, it is true that there exists a biological body, and that this body is the seat of consciousness. Yet phenomenologically, the body is not a thing in itself but an experience, and alongside it there exists only the idea of “body” and the idea of “consciousness.” Physically, it is true that the body is mortal and will one day die. Phenomenologically, however, “death” and “birth” are themselves ideas, while the body remains only one element within the broader field of experience, never the whole of it. This illustrates the gap between physical facts and experiential appearances. Noumenally, no experience could arise without a body; phenomenologically, experience is boundless, and the body plays only a minor role within it. Seen this way, experience proves to be an unreliable guide to physical reality. It carries a mystical quality, for the experiencer encounters everything as mysterious. From this ground we must begin: our only genuine access to the world is inferential, drawn from within an enigmatic field of experience that can never be fully studied from the outside, objectively. Such a situation should instill a deep humility in all claims to knowledge. ------- Mysticism is about a profound unknowing, so if you are looking for knowledge of things, it's not for you.

Dualism is essential to this framework because it requires us to see the world through two lenses at once, each valid within its own domain. From the perspective of the inferred, noumenal world, it is true that there exists a biological body, and that this body is the seat of consciousness. Yet phenomenologically, the body is not a thing in itself but an experience, and alongside it there exists only the idea of “body” and the idea of “consciousness.” Physically, it is true that the body is mortal and will one day die. Phenomenologically, however, “death” and “birth” are themselves ideas, while the body remains only one element within the broader field of experience, never the whole of it. This illustrates the gap between physical facts and experiential appearances. Noumenally, no experience could arise without a body; phenomenologically, experience is boundless, and the body plays only a minor role within it. Seen this way, experience proves to be an unreliable guide to physical reality. It carries a mystical quality, for the experiencer encounters everything as mysterious. From this ground we must begin: our only genuine access to the world is inferential, drawn from within an enigmatic field of experience that can never be fully studied from the outside, objectively. Such a situation should instill a deep humility in all claims to knowledge.

@UnbornTao Dear friend, Would you be offended if I said that your cup is still full? So to speak. You are not yet ready to let go of your imaginary ideas about an "objective reality" and "the brain perceiving" and that's ok. When you see through them finally as imaginary and hallucinatory you will start to see what I mean by the basic phenomenal epistemic ground, the empty mind that is free of believing in imaginary things. Through such a mind you can see clearly the nature of experience and to really know that you don't know. This profound unknowing is the mystical in a nutshell.

There is no "perception" nor a "perceiver" besides as concepts phenomenologically speaking just pure experience. ("Out there outside somewhere", maybe, but that's also a thought) It's hard to understand what is happening to you. It seems you don't want to get it. Do you by any chance think. "This can't be it, it must feel amazing and extraordinary, but this is just normal." How good are you at simply stopping thoughts? Can you reach a "no mind" state easily?

Yes a "rock" is Experience, everything is. You can't look anywhere without finding it. And it is you! You don't need to keep walking around in circles around it, it's accessible to you here and now. There's no process Phenomenologically speaking. The "process" is a story.

It's inference. Try to see when you infer things and when you actually look.

When in "time" will you know? In the "future"? This obsession with breakthroughs is not healthy in my opinion and misses the point. I'm not saying it's not gonna be cool. There are cool ways in which experience may dance, but everything is already in front you right now, staring you in the face, as you stare in it's face. There's nothing but You to find within an infinite You. You are it, being, experience, everything forever and ever.

Wow thank you friend, To even be compared to such an elite intellectual is a huge compliment. I do my best

@UnbornTao For the experiencer, from his phenomenological perspective nothing exists but experience. I don't have theories, I don't need them anymore, only direct consciousness. Funny coming from someone who is working so hard to develop a theory of epistemology right? I think that there is some purpose for a theory as an instrument to keep pointing back to raw experience. That is why I want a theory of epistemology that is based in a basic phenomenological ground. Very simple, like a rock. "experience is not existential" What do you mean by that? You can't experience anything that isn't an experience.

@DocWatts You ability to go deep on a subject is incredible. This is the stuff books are made from. If what you wrote is truly understood it will certainly help with building a new healthy and aware perspective.

Here and now, it's eternal. It's another way to look at the nature of experience. Phenomenologically speaking there is no such thing as "time" besides a conception of it. There cannot be an experience of something that doesn't exist, if that is seen, it all becomes an eternal now.

@DocWatts Wow! Thank you for the amazing feedback. I love to see that at least someone finds this kind of writing useful. I'll be sure to check out your essay as soon as possible. It's funny you should mention these kind of sources as I haven't even touched any of them. I do have trouble with reading books. The commitment to such a large volume always deters me. I do learn a lot from podcasts and the like. (I need to be really engaged to get those receptors to perceive at least something) Of course that means I might reinvent the wheel a couple of times, but on the plus side I get the nice feeling of eureka even though someone must have thought about it at one point. Most of the inspiration is from personal contemplation of direct experience. Trying to put things together to make sense of what experience is.

@UnbornTao I'm only conscious of the ever present now, and not of anything else. There's not a thing that is not Now, nor would such a thing make sense.

Are you directly conscious of Being as absolute? What does "absolute" even mean? In what way? "What is now?" That question doesn't make sense. What isn't Now?

Might be good enough for non dual gurus, but it's very problematic if you want some serious philosophical argument. What do you mean by "what is"? These are the same - pure experience - pure hallucination

@Reciprocality Oh I get it now, it's about the previous essay about Deconstructing reality that was linked in the introduction. In that case your paraphrasing is spot on. In this essay I try to make it as technical and rational as possible to be introduced to a serious philosopher rather than the old essay which is like a modern Buddhism take.

The formation of a Duality between experience and the external world Experience, as it is lived – or seen from within, is inherently non-dual – there is no internal split between “subject” and “object” within the immediacy of perception. However, when one reflects on experience from a “meta-level” (which unsurprisingly itself arises within experience), a distinction appears between “what is experienced” and a supposed “external world” that causes it. This is basically the hard problem in a nutshell – the nature of experience is such that it can’t yet be explained in terms of physics, it’s more like magic. In that sense there is an apparent duality that is yet to be resolved by science. I believe we might solve it someday, and explain how such a phenomenon can exists within the brain cells, and can even generate a sense of self awareness in those cells that are aware of this phenomenon, but we are still not there.

This makes sense. I don't see any other thing besides experience itself as a substance of me. In what way is it absolute? How to verify this in experience? I say to leave all speculation and focus on what is directly available to us right now the true nature of experience.