Well, that confirms the sense I had that you considered yourself finished.
Ah, just realized you mean Iambiguous. A few times you mention people’s names, like say, Eugene, and I have wondered if you know all the personal nicknames of people here. Or you are referring to people I have never encountered.
Though as I have said to Iamb, I find him to be nearly entirely ‘up there’. For him down here is discussion John and Mary’ decision. And learning by experience, other than the experience of arguing via abstractions, is not on the table for him. He does not come across, as you have, as considering himself finished, until you interact with him. Then the finished and impervious become clear or at least, seem clear. I do not know what shifts are taking place behind the mask of the internet. But in practical terms as Iambiguous. I am not saying this merely to trash him, but to note the tricks in disentangling up there and down here. Down here will often be lived through the filters up there, including of course, what up there tells you you cannot know and does not exist. The blind spot in our vision is not interesting because of what we miss most of the time in that patch, but rather the filling in the mind does so we do not see the blind spot. In fact the whole field of vision is in part created as a guess. (I know you know this. I follow lines in my communication.) To Iamb both you and I foolishly ignore Occams’ Razor. We add entities needlessly. You have a fully worked out metaphysics and thus view physics form a completed system, and critique physics from that vantage. I also have a metaphyics, but I am not interested in organizing it in the way you have and then moving towards physics from it. I know there are entities and phenomena that current scientific consensus rules out because they sit uneasily - they think at least - with their models. For me this is empirically based, though I have come critically at this consensus via the philosophy of language - delaing with their metaphors and models - which they tend not to be savvy about, and then also via epistemology. But for me an issue like say, what the results of the double split experiments mean, is not so important, though I like aiming back at mainstream consensus their own consensus opinions which often do not fit with current models and how they rule things out. I am scattershot here, where you are precise and step by step. I have focused more on honing intuition and clearing brainwashing.
That old experiment where you hypnotize someone and tell them there is no chair in the room. This creates a negative hallucination. They will say there is no chair. They would pass a lie detector while saying there is not chair. But they will avoid walking into it. When asked they will justify why they changed direction. Which is a lovely metaphor or really example of how the minds works. Occam, who considered God the only entity that could not be questioned or be superfluous, has been used maliciously as if there are only positive hallucinations. As if dasein could not suppress as well as interpret. I find this the hardest thing for most people to imagine, their possible negative hallucinations. Well, that and getting people to see the full range of consequences of the beliefs they keep insisting they have, but actually only have compartmentalized from their other contradictory beliefs.
You can build a self top down or bottom up of via a combination. I used the former to give direction to the latter and give permission to the latter. You seem to have worked top down. These things make our approaches quite different.
But either way one must have courage. Not the running up the hill to take the machine gun nest courage, which may well be something else other than courage anyway.
Had to look up SAM Coops. I am taking this as literal. A group of people, re social, but the anentropic I am unsure of. I am assuming it is not that the group is literally non-entropic, or at least, this is not all they are. Oddly when I look at the phrase Social Anentropic Molecularism, it comes off as sounding rather Deleuzian, but I find it hard to believe you would have much in common with Deleuze. I can see the term in a number of posts here and have looked through a number of these. I can interpret it as what for most would be a kind of science fictiony term or as a state of consciousness. Presumably it is a balance point, but from there I am not sure. In any case I do not know what kind of ‘actually living’ which you mention below, this would lead to.
So personally I’m glad that’s not the case.