YOUBUBE IS BULLSHIT: VERIFIED

Look, just suffice it to say that I had suspected as much for a very long time, but never got around to checking on it.  I presented my material to the public on BOOBTOOB in good faith, only find that, as I had suspected was very possible, turns out to be exactly the case.

As I said in a post concerning "LIARS AND LAIRS", and as I have been discussing here and there in my recent videos, (and as I said, have suspected "about evenly" for a while now), YOUBOOB is doing what I've heard called "Whitelisting" on my channel there called "The Gnostic Truth" (link above).

I have put my content out there in a clear pattern of progression, from the oldest to the newest, since 2009.  7 years of content, and who knows how long or in how many ways they have basically FAKED my interaction with their filthy policy of obfuscation and obstruction, all because they didn't want me to be AWARE they were doing this, or in any event if I were to be fully aware of it, it would simply be their way of saying "See pal?  There's nothing  you can do. JEWTUBE is UNSTOPPABLE". Well I'm just assuming the source of the problem in this case, because ALEX JONES is flying high in the ratings, but NEVER talks about "the ones you cannot criticize".

Ah well, it seems that the cowards are doing PRECISELY what I predicted they would be doing either in this world or in any near possible world.  They are doing it to me, to my channels, to anyone they damned well please.  They may even allow a faggoty third party do it, so they can have plausible lie-ability.  Haha.

Well, they have very plausible LIABILITY, on a deep spiritual level.  They are pretty much bankrupt since if what I had to say or teach or discuss were so in need of being HIDDEN SO THOROUGHLY that an average browser will see NOTHING on my comment section from the last 2 weeks, and will find NONE of my comments on ANY videos where I have commented, with EITHER of my channels, even though I can see my own comments from either channel with the other (presumably to defuse the obviousness).  But this is not 100% of the time.  Either the system is not foolproof in its design or it is just sloppy, or they are just lazy.

Well, either way, that is a HUGE HEAP of dishonesty on their part, and it just goes to show EVERYONE who is familiar with me and my work that the INTERNET IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED. If they can do it to me, they can do it to you or anyone.  If they will do it on YouBube, they will do it anywhere on the internet, as long as the carrots and sticks are all lined up properly.  For all I know my own subscribers on The Gnostic Truth are mostly just images, receiving no information from me, and perhaps unable to see my comments anywhere, and so forth just as with any other viewer.

I should have known earlier, but I wasn't fully aware in those days as to how deep the cowardice went in the evil lying enemy of cowards which I've since developed quite a bit of study concerning them. Their TROLL FORCES seemed to peter out, then die out.  I thought maybe they had realized I was on to their methodology of constricting their interaction.  They are like a parasite, very intuitive about being detected, as are all predators, such as human criminal cowards.

Well, I was probably right about that.  What I hadn't considered then is that they may even have various methods of controlling information flows through the internet so that, functionally dependent upon your location "on the net" and your "identity on the net", and when and where recognized at any access point, your whole "version of" the internet is regulated and shifted to be within the established parameters their protocols for control have designated.

This pathetic scam is exposed.  And because they've gone to this length to suppress the Truth that I have exposed, imagine what it says about the direction that I've been going. They are actually wanting to completely immure my content in an electronic bubble of deception, and my intuition was correct the entire time.  For all anyone knows, even this post is deep in bubble wrap.

After all, every time I post here, they let me know they instantly view it and +1 it.  It is just their faggoty way of saying "tee hee hee".

So, since the do it here, at the voting booths and the voting machines and in the voting apps, and since they do it everywhere in the society and its institutions, and because as the late Michael Jackson said, THEY DO IT ON PURPOSE, and because they are LIARS and COWARDS, they are cursed forever and  unto Eternity, as I declared Rightly about them some time ago and ever since.  I declared it secretly and then sealed it until I had perfect evidence, then after that I declared it openly and just kept watching the changes.  These world events with which we are now faced, to include the matter of Donald Trump, Fukushima, Psychotronics, Gangstalking, Cowardly fifth column fake people installed in all "communities", Implants, all the typical vectors of evil that are too numerous to mention but which all the others talk about, and now this finally being a 100% certainty concerning the Covert Internet Manipulation Topologies such as "whitelisting", then we are basically "at the end" of this entire system.  It is at its evil breaking point.  The election will only be an outer symptom of a Greater Event which approaches this evil gulag of lies from a Domain beyond its pathetic sense of false control.

All this comes right as I was about to finish up the Axiology series and begin the Praxeology series in earnest.  This is what they wanted to be sure to hide.  All this information, from the depths of theory to the breadth of praxis, from the intricacies of logical analysis to the kaleidoscopes of empirical experience, to the realms of the subtle intuition, they do not want people to get all the information and their analysis from any coherent source unless THEY control it.

Welcome to the obvious, which I've been drumming on about all along.  They must now know that they are doomed.

Eternal Destinies have been decided.  Now this year is going to see MANY changes unfold, as it is now the end of pretenses, as they don't allow even a fraction of the "free speech" and communication which they pretend, while they show you their pathetic and fake pseudo-culture in their products, commercials, "programming", and "entertainment", their "news" and "politics", their "law and order", and all the rest of their hollow and meaningless BULLSHIT.

Mysterium Quotus II

Mysterium Quotus I

In these videos, which are both parts of a whole which I edited down, I discuss, express, explain to wise and foolish public, of whom the greater majority are of the latter disposition, exactly why I say that they are divided into these two groups, in this proportion, and with what consequences for society as a whole, my view of it, (parenthetically, its view of me, which is a deformed caricature of the warps and weaves of their own poor mental hygiene and spiritual or civic virtue), and the consequences of all this for what sort of world it is in which we all seem to live (whether as zombies or rational and decent beings who are not criminals), as well as for my mood (incidentally, but not trivially).

I try to couch all this in a context of promoting virtues such as courage, frankness, self-sufficiency, clarity, reason, activity, initiative, proper impudence when necessary but with a preference select and appropriate indifference or apathy.  Kindness only where possible, which is best served in my case and in the case of many by simply not pretending a lie.

For this is all the only proper way to be, and it is contradicted by the world of hypocrisy, cowardice, perversion, malice, criminality, impertinence, arrogance, ignorance, delusion, avarice, and many other vices that are in sharp distinction in the proportion of evidence of these evils found in practice versus the promulgation and pretenses to the contrary.  These facades which are erected to enable these claims of authentic civic action amount to pretexts based upon disingenuous propaganda along with malfeasance and malice to attack the very principles, rights, and freedoms they pretend to defend.  To attack LIBERTY AND RIGHT HERSELF.

Education, Religion, Medicine, Law, Government, Economics, Finance, Currency, Art and Culture, Customs, Venues of any form of Congress physical or virtual, privacy and any real or other tangible property, even the fabric of SOCIETY ITSELF, are a travesty if not also an outright MOCKERY.

And at worst an active, SURREAL PUT UPON against anyone with a lick of COMMON SENSE.

And that, technically, is according to the world's own expert opinion, I'm just adding my decidedly convinced testimony, vis-a-vis the sources I mentioned at outset, both objective and subjective, publicy and privately available, historical and bitingly current.

For pleasure, each virtue with an attendant motto:

Reason:                 quid est quod quid est?
Virtue:                    et propter eam
Clarity:                   non mentior
Exercise:                fac aut morere!
Frankness:             tantum modo dicuntur
Impudence:            sicut illud aut non, or in extreme cases Go fuck yourself
Self-sufficiency:     ipsissimus maxi via,  No thanks, Nah, No, Fuck Off (depending)
Apathy:                  quid ergo,  Meh
Indifference:           : |

Kindness:                For the deserving (part of Suum Cuique, "To Each His Own").  ENTIRELY OPTIONAL, so:    "si opportunum videtur."

Confusion:              The condition of idiots. Their motto is "stutus quo"
Mischief:                The PERFIDY OF EVIL.  It deserves a nameless grave in oblivion unto eternity. Their Motto: "Sucks to be us".

LIARS AND LAIRS

FUCKING LIARS IN THEIR FUCKING LAIRS





YOU DRAW THE CONCLUSION

FOR FINDING EVIL, and EXPOSING IT, it is far more significant than playing GAMES!!!
But they are PLAYING GAMES WITH YOU!!!

GO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF!!

And by the way, check out BOTH of my TRANSPARENT CHANNELS where I won't WHITELIST you, if I don't like your shit I'll tell you and BLACKLIST you, or else I won't let people post as a blanket policy because I am not leading discussions on those sites.  I am presenting information for people.

UNLESS THOSE ARE BEING WHITELISTED ON A TOTAL SCALE OF THE ENTIRE FUCKING INTERNET as the domain.

In that case, if they can and will do this to me, imagine what they can and will do to YOU.

It is also reversible, as they keep records. This way they can cover their tracks and try to make the person involved look mistaken and/or delusional.  WELL I CAUGHT YOU SONS OF BITCHES.

IN BETTER DETAIL





IT WILL AND HAS ALREADY HAPPENED TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO IS NOT A FUCKING SYCOPHANT OF THE UGLY CYSTS OF POWER THAT HAVE TAKEN THE SOULS OF YOUR MEAT PUPPET MANIFESTATIONS.  WHEN THIS IS THE NORM, YOU ARE DOOMED, BECAUSE ALL TRUTH AND JUSTICE ARE DOOMED.



WHILE AMTV CHASES RED HERRINGS WHICH ARE ISOMORPHIC TO THE REAL ISSUES AT LEAST WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNOLOGY, I HAVE FOUND A MORE IMPACTFUL ISOMORPHISM, THE ONE WHICH HOLDS BETWEEN ANY GIVEN TWO ACCOUNTS ON THE INTERNET, GIVING A MINIMAL CASE INSTANCE OF  HOW MUCH INFORMATION CAN BE THOROUGHLY CONTROLLED WITHOUT PEOPLE PAYING THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF ATTENTION TO THE SERIOUS CONSQUENCES, OR EVEN PAYING ATTENTION TO IT AT ALL.






AND SADLY, THE ENTIRE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS SITUATION BELIES THE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE "FOUNTAINHEAD" OF ECONOMIC FRAUD IN OUR COUNTRY AND IN THE WORLD, REALLY.

IN THE PRAXEOLOGICAL SERIES I'LL BE GETTING FURTHER INTO THAT "MODERN SLAVERY" OF WHICH HE SPEAKS.  WHAT HE WARNS ABOUT THE AI IS TRUE, BUT NOT THE PART OF THE BOTTLE WHICH IS "NECKED".  THE BOTTOM IS BEING ARTIFICIALLY OVERSTUFFED, AND THE NECK IS BEING ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRICTED, DON'T BLAME THE TECH.

AS IN MY CASE, BLAME THE ABUSERS OF IT.











OPAQUE WHITELISTING IS TRANSPARENT

Corpses on Strings

Worthless, lying, cowards.
You hide and pretend authority which you do not have.
You crawl around with falseness as your clothing and skin.

Idiots, fools and morons.
IT IS NOT ME THEY CENSOR IT IS YOU!
You allow yourselves to be censored by worthless, lying cowards.

You allow the blind and evil and stupid to make you just like them!
You allow them to patronize you, you cursed PEASANTS!
NO WONDER I HATE YOU!

You are all despised anywhere Truth and Justice matter.
You are consigned to exist with one another apart from the
Honest and Just
You will be there until oblivion has mercy upon you.

I leave you to your buzzards.

Metapsychedelic Post-Dystopian Interlude

For the discussion held by Terrence McKenna concerning "Meta-psychedelics", there is nothing but praise from me for his dexterous handling of delicate ideas without doing them any direct logical disservice. I could easily imagine being beguiled into a discussion on the nature of reality which catered to his expressions as the starting point, simply for a strategic lack of worthy interlocutors in today's world. Being surrounded by fools and trolls has its consequences. That's not new in life, but seems to have worsened in every way in the world. Not only has demand for Truth gotten higher, but supply of bullshit has gotten more intense. It is as if this were their only real original strategy all along.

And while McKenna is brilliant in many ways, and while he did know and understand much, he like so many reveal a recurring blind spot that cannot be put down to "everybody has one".  Yes, everybody does, but this is the same one in each case.  It concerns at  heart the fundamentals of certain values and the self-contradictions which misrepresent them in the world, yet rely upon people's sense of participation in them for its contrived "stability".  More than this, these can be confirmed assessments in that "real world" and "concrete" phenomena which can and do exist that give direct indication of the brutal consequences of pretending to the contrary. So given that McKenna "gets meta", literally, I have to take an interest. But I must address the topics which he generally and almost completely leaves out of his discussions, all of which is amazing to me that he left them out of his discussion here. That because meta-psychedelics and meta-psychology have an under-investigated and under-reported connection to specific topics which again as I say Terrence NEVER ADDRESSES.  

A significant and essential point is also the irony that I can show that by indirect routes he has nevertheless confessed the significance that my points hold, as when they are introduced to the interpretation of ANY of the issues of psychedelic phenomena that he brings up, all of which are crucial to the discussion of my explanations for what he yields up to "cosmic forces".   I also recognize cosmic forces at work.  I just Know differently about their fundamental nature and so I don't need to circuitously avoid it by meandering around facts as if I didn't know what they signify unless I were a card-carrying member of the silly club of status quo metaphysics aficionados.  And my difference with McKenna is both theoretical and ethical.

Topics which bear compelling interest in ANY possible world, with or without psychedelic phenomena in said worlds, would be the following. Psychotronics control grids, combined with covert 5th column deep-societies distributed high and low and across all parts of a nation as the de facto "Kings Whores" (or as they call themselves, "Men"). That would fit into and meaningfully ramify all the points in this discussion in a way that is "meta-psychedelic". 

There are of course the matters of neuroatypicality, whether natural or artificially induced (legally or illegally, by oneself or by others). Some people are born different, some are made that way, and all sorts of dispositions of choice and fate intercede, sometimes by agencies that have agendas in which the person in question is expected or hoped to participate in some way conducive toward its success. Human hegemonics multiplied by genetics, to the power of choice, or else inversely, the power of choice at the base. 

These factors would profoundly affect all psychological and social life of humans, or other sorts of conscious beings, and in such a way that the indirect and aggregate results, even if not specific dynamics or effects of psychedelic phenomena themselves, would be profoundly affected (as would all other factors of life).  So all the more if these factors could affect any psychedelic effects and phenomena directly. That is a level of consideration no less "profound" than any issues of how to interpret some reports of what happens to people who are especially "DMT-laden".  That would be a given as well, then, as making these topics of directly germane, yet also "meta-psychedelic" significance.

If only that were the end of it.

There are facilities of consciousness that some report to relate to the matters of spiritual significance. Matters of spiritual significance which, however culturally expressed and intoned, inevitably hold up at least the idea of the significance which they manifestly leverage into the lives of people through many means, and with many great consequences. Whatever you may think of a priest, there tends to be some degree of importance that affects the lives of people depending on what degree to which they are respected by their followers or listeners, or even their opposers. 

When the classical forces of hegemony, the diversity of neuroatypicality, the absolute vectors of novelty teleology, and the beneficent platitudes in which McKenna wraps all these into a wonderfully structured cocktail of truths that do not address the utterly primal aspect of values, the values which are not merely "novel as such" any more than "this chair" is "thisness as such". Every "novelty" is novel, and in an arguably non-trivial sense, nothing is more successfully novel than anything else, simply so long as it is distinct in time and space. But if we go beyond the parameters of entity as ontological individual, and we look into the realm of values, the cognition and practice of values, and the worlds which grow only out of that consideration, we have one where "more novelty" has no essential function other than being an epiphenomenal descriptor. 

Sure it might even all be true, but MORE Truth comes forth in the recognition of the absolute values that distinguish a nightmare of novelty from a worthy dream of the same. It won't be the novelty that you love in hell, just as it wouldn't be hated in heaven, but heaven and hell cannot similarly be found within the scope of the "novel as such". 

For example, by way of strengthening this point by way of my disagreement with McKenna (and partly why I feel it is necessary): 

In a universal, metaphysically epic set of conditions, a "raw reality" of any kind, most primal, in whatever form, one would already find novelty in the abundance that is eternally there, without losing any novelty from moment to moment, even if it were "just playing the harp on a cloud". The only novelty that TRUE evil could provide in that context (given it is a stereotyped extreme), is that of destroying the joy that, in my version, was never taken for granted and which was novel, one moment eternally, and never "boring". This invader is the most radical "novelty" you could imagine in that idyllic context, and so I would argue in ANY context in which values hold the significance which I hold them to have, including in this world of falsified values and absolute antivalent conflict between them. 

As the ancient "Shamans" warned: Don't attempt to stand in the middle. You get pummeled from both sides. And from eternal sources, eternal consequences.

And that cannot be a set of ideas and convictions that are formed without value being given a significance greater than "novelty per se", and demonstrates the lack of synthesis it will achieve, unless one depart with the absolute distinction between Good and evil. 

By the way, I SEE ALL OF YOU.... by seeing the two forms of you, and the destinies of these forms are eternal and always paramount. You create your own fate according the degree by which you fulfill your nature, which is novel only as a form of Right and wrong. I've heard pseudo-authoritative people claim they see such things, but whose untruth is born out of their self-contradictions in their dogma and their doctrines, as well as their actions, mostly those they carry out in secret. You are one of them, complicit with them, or you are NOT.  It is that simple.  Your conscience, if you even have one, is your guide.

After all, everything McKenna says, especially toward the latter half of the video, makes him more of an agent of the world as interpreted by all the elements of discussion which I mention but which he seems to avoid in all his discussions, unless it fits in with his mystagogic inclinations. The sum of those inclinations, if we borrow his term "innate tendency" of his dialectic, is the intensification of the psychotronic control grid, whether or not he is consciously a proponent of such a thing. Even his later, philosophically rich discussion, allows this to be seen. 

But even with all that grandiloquent exposition and exploration, which is not unfriendly to the intellect or even the Good Will, I there is a concern deeper than the (adequate) theory which leads the right minded to face implications.  I feel that a covert, psychotronically augmented, total surveillance grid managed world of dystopian cryptogynocrisy runs the dignity of mankind into the ground as a sort of Demiurgic subprogram, and most people are utterly bound to its whims as though slaves. It works better than his "nature as god" motif, because it gives us a totally different, morally objectionable likely cause of many of his observations about the world which he claims are insights into the "spirit of the natural world". 

Ironically, what he says about the false intuitions about immortality and redemption from evil all being inversions of what is a more likely reality. I say that this very insight of his also fits, through a model of an evil "eutopia" which feeds, like a buzzard, on this pigsty mockery of humanity which is the "world of serendipities" that McKenna so blandly praises.  And that is not impressive to me when there are real dangers involved in that world, which can be fabricated to appear "novel and serendipitous" with the full intent and effect of raping the souls of human beings.

Maxime Absurde Firmam Petram

When I was studying epistemology back at UT, it alarmed me at first just how metaphysical it was. The problem with metaphysics as it is presented to the world is that it is given the impression of being the most abstract or arcanely compelling part of philosophy. But in fact, what metaphysics really is is the part of philosophy where the formal framework discovered everywhere else in philosophy is all put into one coherent collection in logical form. But that is not where the philosophical content is about which that metaphysical roster of formulae has been accumulated.

In fact, the height of "worldly wisdom" is more truly epistemology, because it is the science of the mind which thinks beyond itself, and that is the subject of substance.  Metaphysics is created by the mind, and is a subject of knowledge which is a condensation and formal refinement of all the ideas and understanding that is within and available to be treated by or related to the ideas of the mind that performs "philosophy" in all the aspects of being human, but to an ideal extreme of not being fundamentally limited by the circumstantial forms of being human that are not essentially such.

So really epistemology, to the young and mentally active mind who is genuinely philosophical, will suddenly blaze forth as the fundamental engine of all philosophical activity, at least on the formal level.  But this revelation is only the beginning of an inversion of distorted first impressions, for some less counter-intuitive than for others, but in the end found to be the only proper way to see the matter.

Fundamentally it is values which designate the phenomena of the world, and which therefore order the structure and function of all beings.  But since in a naive universe we most likely do posit fundamental categories of being and formal classes of beings, we have a systemic approach to ontology, and in such a universe it is still a category of philosophic approach to creatively and meaningfully deconstruct such ontologies along lines where they are dysfunctional to the processes of knowledge and action in any other area, it must be to at least that extent the case that values and intellectual processes innate to the mind which later conducts metaphysics (here and there), therefore are more fundamental and precede that metaphysics and infuse it with the data and format which will become the compressed, logical representation of all that was put into it.

Coming to realize that at any rate, different ontologies can be compared and contrasted systematically, begs the question of just how is it that metaphysics, and in some definite ratio in this respect also the rest of philosophy, could be bogged down in so-called "perennial problems". But perhaps every philosopher has been tempted to think this way about some element or domain of their experience of life, existence, and everything. The most monumental of them happened to be in the strict habit of thinking that way, even after studying the work which had been done before them, paying proper respect to the main lights on their own path to realization. No mere "simpleton" could bear that mantle willingly, whether others sponsor him or not.

I did with great pleasure and earnestness, and I still do. One of the areas of metaphysics, especially in the ontology, which I found fascinating was the aspect of metaphysics which enables that "infamous hairsplitting", which unfortunately can become dovetailed with another aspect of metaphysics, called "haresplitting", but that one will clarified only after due preparation.  Let's just say for now that how you split hairs, matters, and not all hairsplitting is dispensable.

Specifically here, in the regard of whether or not there is matter or substance independent of minds as such, it became apparent to wise thinkers that there is no need to start by assuming more than one mind, and when that assumption is dropped, no significant features of the mind/matter distinction seem to be elaborated or made more problematic.  Yet, everything seems to have lost its moorings and slips into solipsism or the nearest thing to it, barely allowed any distinction at all, yet incapable of denying "alterity".  That there should be "not just one being", but bringing the universe all into the gaze of one mind, "no matter what", and ruling out other minds "no matter what", we are left with now two kinds of things about which we seem to have very little, in any, direct evidence. That is "matter" and "other minds".  Yet we presumably do have "alterity".  There is the "sense of" other minds, and there is the "sense of" matter, and these are all part of a sense of experience which is formally structured to give us, at minimum, a conditioned "illusion" of "other minds" and of "matter", and this itself will always demand explanation, whether or not "any such thing" actually exists "beyond our ideation".

But the reverse becomes true by a proportionate shift in our thinking. If I begin with "solipsism", I must admit that I have begun with a very interesting form of it, where the predominant code of experience in the human social realm, and in many realms of constructive, elaborate thought which human discourse seems to take for granted, MATTER EXISTS and OTHER MINDS EXIST. These seem so fundamental as to be an unconscious religion.  Even if their "fundamental ideas" are actually correct, they seem to just force their way into the discussion before it begins, and it just magically revolves around them, but no mechanism seems evident for why there could have ever been any doubt, therefore why the need for certainty?

In other words, if "that's just how it is", that matter exists and other minds exist, and it also just so happens that minds know this innately, then why can there be such a natural understanding that these intuitions are not evidenced directly? Surely the foundation of their truth in existence, and their truth in the intuition of the mind, is not a mere "parallelism"!  That is a fundamental issue in the so-called "mind-body" problem.

Of course it is hard to solve that from the "no minds exist" strange-verses, leaving us in a universe where there is only matter.  Add at least one mind, and things get interesting.  Not the least of reasons being that only that mind makes it interesting, both in giving birth to "interest (to a mind) itself".  Because it is now the only mind, and therefore now everything that exists has a potential to hold a mental relation called "interest" which would have otherwise been impossible.  Likewise "matter" becomes a notion to that mind, as that "subject matter of experience" about which the mind is interested.  It seems that the entire issue revolves ontologically around the mind, not the reverse, but only after minds actually exist. Before minds exist, there is no discussion of the question at all, nor is it possible in actuality. Only the possibility of mind is necessary to make discussion of matter possible in a world of primordial matter with not yet a mind within it actually. But as to the existence of matter per se, it is never the reverse, so that in a world of pure mind, we can easily conceive the notion of "matter" in some form, notwithstanding the particular notion of "matter" that is meant by physicists as "hyle".

Mind, and all that mind does, is more fundamental than "being" and "all that being is".  That is conceptually visible in the skeletal discussion on the matter I've presented here so far.  But it is just the beginning. Going further, we find that there are techniques of analysis which admit of "physical matter" as a subset of "mental processes", and which then reveal how the measure of mental processes are cut along fault lines found only in his moral, or very immoral spirit.

But this would be true no matter what occurs "outside the mind" in certain specific ways, and so would be true no matter the question of "other minds" and of "matter". I will say that certain qualia of the mind, which are rarefied reflections in metaphysics, which are elaborations and formalizations of what takes place fundamentally in epistemology, while those processes of epistemology are grounded in the phenomena which are essentially the subject of axiology, and in essence this is most fundamentally addressed by the Spirit.  That is a conscious, conscientious sentience, in whatever "form of being". In man the best and highest features of mind and personality are found, but also the worst, and just as he goes far higher than a chimp, he goes also far, far lower.

Rather than go further into those beautiful matters, which dare the mind down paths some of which may not allow his safe passage back to his point of origin, I'll summarize it by saying there are "qualities" which are manifest only under the conditions of man which include the rather self-reflective matters broached in all of life and especially in philosophy, and which it is our power, and our duty, to resolve properly.  Think about it in a minimalist way, by analogy. You are the current generation.  The future is your progeny.  You have to decide whether to give that future a meaningful existence, or to destroy it, or even to deform it and mutilate it in an extended display of absolute evil (what is taking place in the world today, I have argued elsewhere). How did anyone splitting all the wrong hairs of philosophy fail to see this as more important than anything else?  In all possible worlds, no matter what "lies beyond", whether in space, time, cause, or dimension of any kind, what you do is your legacy, and what you leave behind you is your statement about all of eternity as far as you are concerned.  

For those who are doing evil in the world, being too stupid or ignorant or cowardly to do otherwise is not a sufficient excuse. For those doing RIGHT, we can understand their motivation.

We find that what really matters are qualities, expressed and revealed through the minds of men, and their world is the sum and promulgation and abundance of that luxurious, metaphysically epic opportunity.  We can see how, even in a universe of one mind, a world can be manifest which seems to be all of a bunch of notions about which all the direct evidence is qualified internally, no matter the external qualifications which are appended. We can still yet find an order in all these phenomena which reconstruct meaningfully all these phenomena so that the notions of matter and other minds are not "alien" to us.  In fact we can similarly understand sense and experience modalities as qualitatively internal even if we thought their entire formal structure is strictly supervenient for their occurrence upon the existence of bodies and their tissues.  In other words, in all cases, mind precedes matter both ontologically and in every coherent understanding of the world, even where mind is "supervenient" upon matter. It is not reducible to matter.  Matter is meaningfully reducible to mind, both ontologically and conceptually, as being a modality of mind (its qualia and their processes) and as being a modality of mentality (the processes of mind which produce and manifest beyond initial states and seem to possess a symbolic reality "in themselves" as being, at their extreme, "the other").

I have forced solipsism to cater to my argument in a way which strengthens it from objections to its coherence, at least "formally", and in just the same way that "sign" is coherently denuded of all the content held in what it signifies.  And there has manifested the effulgence of "adventitiousness" that Descartes rightly noted, literally "of its own accord".  It comes out of the realization of intentionality, which happens here in the sense that the intentionality of the mind, to be coherent, must be immune to any "false positives" as well as any "false negatives".  No event, severed from or even severable from that intentionality of mind can be mistaken for any which is is not severed from, nor severable from it.  If it is truly "up to me", it cannot be mistaken for being otherwise.  Nor, if it isn't, could it be.  Likewise, if it is contingent in any "interesting" way, it must be about "matters" which are within the mind's experience, but are not "up to" its intent, and they must not be trivial, such as "all of my intentions and all phenomena have no correlation", which is an absolute and universal correlation of the negative sort that becomes, ironically, instantiated as a negation of intent for all its instances, except perhaps for the intent to come to this bleak realization that nothing ever happens as intended. Yet the intention to discover this was the opposite that was intended. That was to discover something that might have gone the way I intended, or according to an intention "other than" my own.

I may simply assert that interesting combinations of intention-correlations with phenomena of the mind's experiential world are at some proportion such as 50/50, just to be poetic. It's a give and take universe of intention.  Half of what happens is according to or in some proportion consistently contrary/aligned to my intentions. But the other half bears no intelligible correlation. Even without "other visages" of mind, there would be a sense of "otherness in negation" to a principle feature of my own deepest subjectivity, my choices toward that to which I am inclined and my dissatisfaction with that toward which I am not inclined, which two features produce all the texture of my intentionality. And this is a very central feature of my subjectivity "as such" in that it may or may not correlate with any other aspect of my experience, whether as an "action" of any direct kind (making "my hand" touch "my nose") or of an indirect sort, such as predicting events I expect to occur, or being able or not to remember some event in my past experience.

That realm is negated by a substantial portion of experience, and that inner realm is within the reach of my will (including will to anticipate accurately), and all else is outside that realm.  There may be, as I have suggested, a buffering/scaling zone of contingency, so that sometimes a given correlation is strong, other times weak, and there is already a "solipsistically interesting" metaphysical question, as to why this division, and to what degree, with what meaning, for what purpose (if any) and to what end, and of course with what (if any) consistency over time. It could be considered a metaphysical example of a sort of decision problem as might be found in computing theory. But perhaps this could be discerned after being finally noticed, after some unknown period of time (perhaps an eternity past), and then decided after some discrete amount of time, to be followed by a future where it never need be considered formally in this way ever again, perhaps for an eternity future.

Even with that certainty posited, and its attendant questions put aside (at least temporarily for us), we still have interesting questions that may never be resolved.  For example, is it possible that another "intentionality" empowers the phenomena that are uncorrelated with my own intent?  Is it even possible that some domains are open to contest between my intention and this "possible other" intention?  If not, what is the cause?  I know directly the cause of my own intentionally controlled phenomena of experience, and that cause is my own volition. But what of that beyond and sometimes going consistently against (or perhaps with) my intention?  Is that "intentional" also? Or is there another kind of cause?  What is most knowable is that which is already known in such pure cases, an intuition similarly found on the path which Descartes already treads at his own adroit pace, and what I've suggested is either in line with or congenial to what he has put forth in his Meditations on First Philosophy.  But I think he left out much when it came to the axiological implications (and ramifications) in relation to the parts of his work which are more clearly pronounced.  I think his reasons for that were political, whether he was conscious of it or not.

What is revealed beyond issues of pure intentionality, is the question of why a mind intends with any preference.  That is irreducible in the form of prima facie values which are integral to the structure of experience in some fundamental way, and which, at least according to some solipsistic universes which are naively "like our universe", in the form of definitive and distinct experiences of "qualities" which are called, in themselves, "qualia".  Of those pertaining to value, the most significant are those which are germane to the discussion of values on the utmost human level, and that would relate to questions of how experiences are processed pertaining to categories referred to as "Right" and "wrong", or "Good" and "evil".  So even a solipsistic being could conceivably wonder about the nature of its preferences, even in the specious world where its only intent was to blunder its way toward the realization that total causal confinement as a mere effect were its only strict correlation to all phenomena except its own (in seeming at least) path to this realization.  But that strange world's self-contradiction left aside for a moment, even there we do not destroy the interesting question of whether that realization was preferable, even if it were inevitable.  

Perhaps as an example and for a bit of fun, it might seem that an outcome is inevitable, but there is still a preference.  It may be impossible to avoid a situation where a large celestial body comes slamming into earth (a specific experiential conception of the possible, or a possible conception of experience, or a conception of the possibility of experience), and that may or may not be, in any given world, something any mind has ever foreseen or ever could foresee (what if all "minds" were too crude for that as even a remote possible conception).  Yet it is perhaps difficult to see how, if things going on til that point were preferred to total destruction, that a being wouldn't, if it were able, to prefer whatever is contrary to the inevitable collision and which still enables some semblance of its preferences sufficiently intact.

What will be important in any event, for this example, is that the qualia which underwrite our discussion of preferences will not be reducible to any explanation which precludes the direct insight into those qualia as fundamentals of experience in the way that they are the forms of experience. And when that comes to fundamental values which cannot have any meaningful transformations which precede absolute opposition (Good, or evil; Like it, or not...), then there is no way to "bootstrap" such notions into existence that makes any sense in a way more fundamental than it makes sense as it is already.  This isn't to say that meaningful correlations of expectations with results which include such fundamental values cannot have contingencies about them, and for all we know that can be found in many permutations even with only one agency in existence, with or without imagining "other agencies". 

What is no less immediate and clear to the mind, alike with its own agency, is the qualities of its own experience.  It wasn't necessary to reduce to a "user friendly" solipsistic universe to make these points, but it was interesting to see that a solipsistic universe could resemble our own "putatively non-solipsistic" universe, and retain certain interesting non-trivial features that bring us to consider three interesting questions:

1) would any of this change if and only if other minds exist? (yes)

2) is there anything about "other minds" which precludes solipsism, even in our "generous" solipsistic universe, making it a "philosophical straw man" of sorts?  (yes)

3) are those answers definitively relevant to a discussion of what we know and what we value, and hence what sort of world it is and what we ought to be doing in it? (ditto).

In the article to follow I'll articulate the ways these answers yield a significance inversely proportional to their their brevity here.