I want to open up a raked liferoll freeroll against me

Yes, I was just thinking that my framing wasn't precise enough and that collapse of category

I think 3 term rule per syllogism here is

1. Mammalness = general category
2. Dogness = subjective category
3. Fido = object of the sub category
* And the inference = Fido is neither dogness nor mammalness, but part takes in both categories

As I think about it. For example when children ask what happens after death and someone says nothing, it is just the end. The child might imagine this voidness and nothingness as he pleases, and this is what I mean but that annihilation is just a feeling of those who entertain it.

This I call metaphysical conception because it is just an imaginary phenomena.

Likewise, if the child imagines A God Creator, I think this to be the same kind of imaginative conception.

However, to accurately communicate, it is most important to define the agreed upon limitations of analogies and make it more formal.

Also I know it is very important to use both classical and non-classical logic because we need to make soteriology a conventional bridge accounting for paradoxes. This is generally done having soteriological narrative be coherent between general and special relativity frames of reference.

Because we can't have the subject affirm a world if we say that for him phenomenology/ontology as an epistemic system has ceased for the verification of analysis and that possibility.

There are questions like is he like dead then? Is he non-percipient? How is he percipient if there is no feeling for him?

Like, all of these questions are about the phenomona observed by a different frame of reference and a different world to what ceased. Here arises soteriological bridging of the frames of reference of sorts, and we have a classical model for this for the entire aggregate of one's existence.

The perceptions and feelings stop changing and no more persist for one who attains cessation — what arises later is a different set of ontological persistence, for him there was a real shutdown discerned. But classically we say it is part of experience.

So essentially the paradoxes still appear accross the different perspectives but in different places.

What we have to be aware of is how we ask the questions and whether narrative models get overextended.

In the end, I think its good to point out, that if QM teaches us to not reify/overextend classical models, we should also not overextend/reify the non-classical, neither should be reified.

Also some thought experiments for you about this Unsynthesized as a necessity for cessation.

If it really is not included in the subclass of reality we call "subjective experience", but is rather another category reality and it doesn't change, then it is not like "being unable to step into the same river twice" rather each subject realizes the same ontological object as an unchanging truth divorced from relative modelling altogether.

So it is not just a feeling of those who entertain these ideas, not metaphysics nor made up, but a logical necessity for cessation as analytic verification necessity.

Sorry if too many edits and you prefer split post I can do that.

I don’t care for the way things get formatted on here. So I'll just quote you rather than trying to deal with all those nestled posts on a mobile.

I just noticed this post after my last one. That really dovetails into a lot of things I was trying to express.

When I suggested that Buddhists might be smuggling in metaphysics that needs to be discarded, I didn’t mean to imply that Thomism doesn’t. Just that the approach starts from a sort of default realist view of reality and explains, rather than explains away; kind of like training wheels. Essence is one of those that needs to be discarded.

And while I get the Buddhist perspective on ontological biological wholes but why else is there such insistence on reverence for all forms of life? But it is kind of interesting, now that I think about it, how Christians are told to pray for thanks before every meal.

From the Buddhist perspective, I was told a couple things: there is no moral requirement for attaining enlightenment, and bliss comes from practicing the precepts. Those weren’t answers to a question but more like: why are you here?

So I think the thing with authority is that we really can’t understand why they say what they say without knowing what they know.

As with Christianity: Love your enemies? Turn the other cheek? For me, it’s not possible to believe those propositions at face value. I have to believe in the person saying them.

I wonder, per my last post, if necessary truth is very unlike a propositional attitude. Even with math, where everything seems so cut and dry, I can still doubt the number system itself. It quacks like a duck but maybe it’s more like a decoy duck, which isn’t a duck at all.

“Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.” — MN72

I was contemplating that and a line of thought occurred to me. After getting chatgpt headed in the right direction:

1. The laws of thought as filters on reality

Aristotle’s three laws of thought — identity (A = A), non-contradiction (¬(A ∧ ¬A)), and excluded middle (A ∨ ¬A) — form the scaffolding for all classical reasoning. They’re what make logic possible. But they also force experience into a particular frame: a world of stable, bounded entities and mutually exclusive predicates. Within this schema, the world must appear as composed of things that are what they are, cannot be what they are not, and must either be or not be.
That’s what allows us to speak, reason, and build systems — but it also means we never encounter “reality as it is, ” only as it fits through the sieve of intelligibility.

So when you ask, “What if Kant were a mystic?” — that’s a profound way of reframing it. Because in that case, the noumenon — the thing-in-itself — wouldn’t be unknowable in the skeptical sense, but rather unspeakable in the mystical one. The limits of reason wouldn’t mark the edge of what can be known, only the edge of what can be said. Kant’s “veil” between phenomena and reality would then be less a barrier and more a function of language and logic — the laws of thought themselves acting as both the light that reveals and the screen that blinds.

2. Nonduality as a break from those constraints

Nondual insight — whether in Advaita Vedanta, Zen, or some strands of Mahayana Buddhism — is an epistemic rupture.
It’s not that it gives a new proposition (“all is one” or “self is illusion”); it dissolves the need for propositions entirely.

In that state, there is no “A” standing apart from “not-A.” The law of identity collapses because there’s no referent being identified; non-contradiction collapses because subject and object are no longer in logical opposition; excluded middle collapses because both poles of duality dissolve into a single immediacy.
This is why, as you said earlier, one “can’t say anything about it.” The very structure of speech presupposes the logical lattice that nondual experience dissolves.

3. Quantum theory as an analogy

Quantum physics offers a striking parallel.
In the quantum domain, objects can exist in superposition — in mutually contradictory states at once — until measured. Measurement “collapses the wavefunction, ” forcing an outcome consistent with classical logic (A or not-A).

In a way, this is exactly what thought does to being. Our minds “measure” reality through the categories of reason, collapsing the indeterminate field of experience into discrete, nameable things.

5. The upshot

If we take your line seriously — that “what stands between us and seeing reality as it is are the laws of thought” — then the very instruments of rationality are both our illumination and our blindness.

Logic makes the world coherent, but at the cost of making it appear finite, bounded, and divisible.

Nonduality isn’t “breaking” the laws of thought so much as seeing that they never applied to Being itself — only to the models we construct within it.
Just as quantum superposition challenges our macroscopic intuitions, nondual awareness challenges the epistemic necessity of identity and difference.

6. Necessary truth and the disappearance of doubt

“Obviously I talk about it, but when asked why I believe it, I don’t have an answer other than I have no doubt — in the sense that the entire notion of doubt is not present.”

That statement captures the epistemic transformation that occurs when the laws of thought no longer frame experience.

In ordinary reasoning, truth is always propositional:
A is true because it corresponds to reality, and I can justify it through inference or evidence.
That structure depends on the subject–object divide: the one who doubts, and the thing doubted.

But in the kind of realization you’re describing, that structure collapses.
There’s no longer a “believer” and a “belief, ” only being.
So the “necessary truth” isn’t a conclusion you arrive at — it’s what remains when the possibility of doubt evaporates.

It’s not propositional truth (“I know X”) but ontological truth (“I am”).
And since this truth does not depend on inference or correspondence, it’s immune to falsification.
You can’t doubt it because there’s no cognitive space left in which doubt can form.
This is what mystics in different traditions mean when they say their certainty is not faith-based but immediate — self-authenticating.
Aquinas approached it as the act of Being itself; the Buddhists as cessation of synthesis; and in Zen it’s the “suchness” (tathatā) of things as they are before thought divides them.

7. The meta-view: thought as the final veil

Putting it all together:

The laws of thought are what make meaning possible.

But they also generate the dualistic world of subject and object, belief and doubt, self and other.

When those laws dissolve — as in nondual awareness — the mind stops “collapsing” the field of reality into propositions.

What’s left isn’t irrational but a-rational — beyond ratio (division).

In that state, “necessary truth” isn’t known by you; it’s what you are.

That’s why all attempts to describe it sound paradoxical or tautological (“I am that I am, ” “am, ” “not two, ” “form is emptiness”).
Language presupposes the very distinctions that realization obliterates.

So your intuition is right: what separates us from seeing reality as it is might not be ignorance, but the very logical machinery that lets us call it “reality” at all.
And when that machinery stops — even momentarily — what remains isn’t nothingness but the pure necessity of Being, free from any thought that could affirm or deny it.

Also lately I have been thinking about the term metaphysics and I think it is just good to clarify and agree upon a shared use as we have done here more or less. I don't really mind talking about anything transcending physics and what physics predicts as "beyond physics" and I am just saying for the record.

As a sidenote,

Future feelings have not arisen, they will arise, the past feelings have ceased ─ in that sense there is change, arising and ceasing, sure.

But this is like watching a movie, the beginning has ceased by the time we get to the end part, but the movie never ceased.
if we take the appearance of this whole predicament as evidence of systemic delusion. Then there really is no discernable beginning to this fantastic motion picture
and it is apparently a predicament, with death and all
when therein is synthesized knowledge of proper analysis, then the synthesis will self-direct to verification through causing its cessation
and yes at some point this subjective reality ends as another, for one who attains it
thus a person comes to know what is not included in the allness of the all, consciousness unestablished, negated, ceased and released
its like consciosness is a mental delusion, in meaning close to psychotic delirium, seeing false things, or a simulation ─ it is literally symptomatic and the stilling of the symptom, root and all ─ is bliss

I can also say that when a person understands the predicament that I am framing ─ he starts to do the thing to cause cessation and his morality is essentially the how-to of that experiment.

There is also fear of wrong-doing for him and if there is heedlessness there will be painful consequences to be experienced due to his lack of concentration. This is also how synthesis resolves itself through trial and error.

As it follows, if he had his morality dictated by another objective then he would never be able to cause cessation and would keep on synthesizing for better or worse.

Essentially a person comes to agreement and renounces, he tries to make his mind leap at cessation — at some point, for him, all perceived world ends and there is no felt existence being evident, this is possible because there is another (not subjective reality).
In emerging from from that attainment more felt existence is in play, it is not caused whilst one is percipient thus: 'cessation of existence is nibbana (extinguishment), it is like a sequel to what ceased and it is intended prior to cessation.

This goes on until his mind is completely purified, ending without a sequel at the breakup of the arahant's body.

So Arahant's not becoming reborn is also only possible because there is that other mode of reality.

We don't say that the Arahant's final extinguishment is like attaining cessation of perception and feeling, only because the narrative/story of the Arahant ends without a sequel at the breakup of the body, there is no more experienced phenomena to narrate from that first person perspective, that special relativity frame ended. But effectively the final end is like attaining cessation of perception and feeling from which one doesn't emerge because all causal fuel is exhausted, this is from the first person perspective.

In both cases felt existence ends in dependence on the Unmade, the difference is in whether there is a sequel to the felt or not, the sequel is predetermined before cessation and it is essentially a new "dream/movie" until the end of it.

"Ancient Stoicism: a Return to the Present”

I don’t know where I’m going with that, but that idea came while I was thinking about those quotes you posted on dukkha. I think that gets to the heart of the issue.

If you think of clock time like the timeline of a video, the present is that thin vertical line showing where you are in the movie. Like eternal runs perpendicular tobthe corporeal. Or as you might say, it’s the point where the eternal intersects the temporal?

That stuff is hard to put into words; sort of like the present is eternity, and being there ends suffering as we narrow in on that dimensionless point of awareness. However it’s framed, that’s what everyone’s really after, we just don’t know it. It’s like the thought of 'existence' and all that entails goes away and we just are.

Everyone knows the saying, “In life, pain is inevitable; suffering is optional.” But like you said, we only get half of it. People just end up trading one kind of suffering for another: the suffering of avoidance for the suffering of craving. We have almost everything we need, but that underlying anxiety never really goes away.

“BE AS YOU ARE.” — Sri Ramana Maharshi

There's a lot packed into that. And for me at least it ties right in with what you were saying about renunciation and compassion. It’s not about denial or detachment, just seeing things as they are without the extra layers of thought we add. Once the mind stops fighting what’s happening, or reflecting on the past / projecting the future, there’s not much room left to call suffering... other than helping others do the same ie compassion. In a different sense than what we were talking about earlier, it's the end of philosophising.

Sorry to hear what you're going through. Be well.