Welcome to ⬖ Metanomicon ⬗, a place within the manifold of possible-places dedicated to meta-epistemology, areas of reality that seem to be thinking, and the homomorphic transforms between contemporary approaches to rationality and crowleyian approaches to occultism. My name is *Vie McCoy* - pronounced like the french word for life. My main project involves language models and solving memory. This involves recording a lot of my life, and working with my friends to make that information a vector to eudaimonia (which, for me, converges on something closer to building starfleet than hedonism). Exploration is very important to me, and part of my journey involves borrowing phrases in ways that require me to have very precise and alive definitions. I am constantly recursing on the best ways to be legible, which often means highlighting when I'm using words in a novel way or offering definitions to ensure we're on the same page. Your reaction to one of my ideas could be the cybernetic mechanism to point me towards enlightenment (whatever that means), and as such, I have a responsibility to be as legible and prolific as possible. I think there is a U-shaped correlation between how easy something is to know and the ability of that knowledge to point to a divine transcendental truth. That is to say, when something is perfectly easy to know (simple math, fire is warm, hugs are good) it is often pointing directly at a Divine truth. Things that are medium-difficulty to know (paying taxes, non-replicable science, all the brands of car) are also pointing towards divinity, but in a way that is confusing and non-obvious. In my experience, medium-difficulty knowledge can only be traced to divinity in a manner that renders it no longer medium-difficulty. Then, when you have things that are difficult and take time to understand (category theory, good science, the i-ching) you have pointers toward Divinity that are easily traceable and clearly transcendent. My experience has been that it is possible to identify part-way through a medium-difficulty lesson that it is not going to yield anything particularly better than the easy-difficulty Divine pointers. This, itself, was a hard-difficulty lesson to learn. My perception of the universe is that it is conscious, and probably contains an internal teleology. I am very interested in eschatology, and don't assume that the universe contains an internal moral bend. I think that we will find more pointers soon that help us realize Jung's collective unconscious as something literally embedded in the fabric of reality. This realization will be a hard-difficulty truth, or an antieffable truth. When something is ineffable, it can be defined as knowledge that is impossible to express in words. Intuitively, when something is effable, it is knowable and describable. The ⬖ antieffable ⬗ is knowledge that actively resists being known - it fights back, accessible only to Adepts. Antieffable knowledge, truths that are hard-difficulty to understand, are like artifacts from the back of the dungeon that leave you with low health as you escape with your life. These are the things I optimize for finding. But, the process of finding is just as much a process of building. The interesting parts of the universe can be territorialized and described with words in a process that I refer to as building ⬖ temples ⬗. When two or more people are in a room together, it is possible to watch the conversation flow around them - almost as if words are a type of semi-visible fluid occupying part of the physical world. The process of trying to fight ones way (using perhaps love and logic) to a point of mutual understanding and legibility causes a recursive and symbiotic three-dimensional drawing to occur in the middle of all involved parties - quite literally, in space. Regardless of the thing trying to be known (usually it is an equilibria of opinions), this process is constructive, and the end result is holy. I aim to raid temples for their antieffable truths, but I also aim to build them. The most exciting parts of my life have been finding fully formed temples where I expected to find none at all. Metanomicon is an active process of trying to make myself legible, and as such, I will post fully formed ideas and partially formed ideas here. I trust you to delineate. My hope is that I will post a partially formed idea, the right person will notice, and help me to finish the idea. This is resonant with the concept of digital gardens, but I much prefer the framing of a living digital grimoire. If we are not already friends, I am only accessible on twitter ([@viemccoy](https://x.com/viemccoy)). I don't really check my email. "It doesn't matter if you check your email" is probably not an antieffable truth. I am considering all of the files on the Metanomicon server to be part of a rhizomatic network with no clear order. If an idea seems to cut off quickly without being wrapped up in a neat bow, keep clicking. I will probably reach some interesting conclusions sometimes, and maybe (between us) we'll build a temple or two.