The Nietzschean Yogi

 This post is about frames. 

 A frame is a self-consistent representation that accounts for all the observations you have made about life. 

We love frames because it allows us to coherently ground our action in the world. We expend a lot of cognitive (in lack of a better word "vital") energy in trying to create and update our frames in a bayesian-like process of updation.

We want frames at all levels. You want a frame for your own actions, a story. You want a frame for your relationships, a dynamic. You want a frame for your company, a vision. You want a frame for the world, a utopia. 

When we don't have frames, we don't have meaning. We end up confronting life in all its absurdity and unexplainability. 

A plausible definition of creativity is an extension of the current frame to account for such observations; it is at the edge of chaos and logos that it plays. 

All frames are at their base delusions. The map is not the reality. The more closely you observe life, stranger it gets. 

Breaking frames is sometimes important to some people; When a frame becomes stagnant, not useful. 

But in breaking a frame, one must have the creativity and vital energy to create a new one or confront reality head on. Or else, we end up as a fraction of ourselves, losing energy in the indecisiveness and nihilism of framelessness. 

Nietzsche's proclamation about the death of god may be interpreted as a statement about frames. 

The many frames we have in society are patchworks or assemblages of different frames which in the past were all precariously perched on the jenga tower of religion. 

Dogmatic conditioning which made religious axioms unquestionable was what held up the whole system. 

Science is in a sense representative of the whole process of making frames itself. Empirical falsifiability and Bayesian model updation being its core tenets that everything can be derived from. 

It is a representation of the process of creating representations. 

What about its philosophical foundation? Assuming that the perspective indepent reality; the noumenon can be viewed by us is what abstracts and disallows the coexistence of unfalsifiable beliefs and science. 

The question at its core is an epistemic one; in disallowing unfalsifiable beliefs that do not contradict any empirical observations, we choose to give away the humility of agnosticism.

Perhaps the only way to break that frame is to undermine one's trust in their own perceptual capabilities. 

That is the only question. 

To break that frame of empirical falsifiability requires a trust so great, or an experience so powerful that it is perhaps impossible normally in today's world.

There is no way this system can work without people who are "enlightened" in some sense. considering "revelation" as a valid epistemic device can hence be considered a litmus test of whether one is religious or not. 

This is the core of almost all religions. There are immense rewards to such a system but the downsides are equally as devastating, perhaps even more. 

Perhaps, the only way is to be such a light to oneself; to break all frames in your own story, yet play along with them in society. 

What kind of people must we become to become worthy of this deed?

The overman is a yogi.

Namaste.