In In-Out Ontology (IOO), an existent is constituted in a minimal spatial form that entails a distinction between its own being and its own nothingness. This distinction establishes the minimal condition for an existent to be distinguishable as itself.

The superposition of being and nothingness can be distinguished into four forms through the relations between oneself and other existents:

1. The superposition of one's own being and one's own nothingness.
2. The superposition of one's own being and the nothingness of others.
3. The superposition of the being of others and each other's own nothingness.
4. The superposition of the being of others and one's own nothingness.

The essential point is that the distinction between one's own being and nothingness extends into, and crosses with, the being and nothingness of other existents. Being and nothingness are therefore not organized solely within an individual existent; their superposition also structures relations among multiple existents.

The inner is constituted through the being of oneself, or of a given domain, in superposition with the nothingness of other things. The outer is constituted beyond one's own range of constitution, through the relation between the being of other existents and one's own nothingness. Inner and outer can thus be understood as modes through which the superposition of being and nothingness is organized in the relations between oneself and others.

The distinction between one's own being and nothingness provides the conditions for one's internal and external constitution. When one's own being is superposed with the nothingness of others, one's internal constitution becomes relationally connected to the distinction between oneself and other existents. Likewise, the being and nothingness of other existents provide the conditions for their respective internal and external constitution. When the being of others is superposed with one's own nothingness, the internal constitution of those others becomes relationally connected to one's own constitution as part of their outer.

Through these forms of superposition, In-Out Entanglement emerges. Within this structure, the inner and outer are not independent domains. They are interrelated operative domains that distinguish existents from one another while establishing ontological relations across their boundaries. The outer of one existent intersects with the inner of another, and vice versa, so that the constitution of each existent is relationally connected to the constitution of others.

Signification is only possible thanks to the lacking of a substantial base

Would love for Any nietzsche readers or those interested to check this out!

Combining ideas from Nietzsche and MacAskill leads to the following ethical standard: we should strive to act such that we would be willing to relive the interaction from the perspective of all those involved. This principle encourages us to adopt the perspective of others, thereby engaging in a radical practice of empathy that respects the wellbeing, dignity, and uniqueness of each person we interact with. Next, turning to political philosophy, a similar standard – strive to create a society such that you would be willing to successively live the life of all persons in that society – preserves some of the key insights of Rawls’s original position and veil of ignorance, while also avoiding some objections to this imaginary decision-procedure.

Singer, 1972

Most public analysis of modern tech accelerations focuses on immediate market or safety mechanics. However, evaluating the political theology driving figures like Peter Thiel requires mapping a specific 19th and 20th century intellectual cannon: Vladimir Solovyov's Short Story of the Antichrist (where the Antichrist functions as a hyper-realistic, safety-obsessed administrator), Rene Girard's mimetic theory, and Carl Schmitt's sovereign exception.

In this framework, the existential risk vector isn't a traditional tyrant or a mad scientist, but a centralizing safety apparatus that uses risk management to enforce total technological and civilizational stagnation. The administrative state becomes a sovereign gatekeeper that pacifies political tension by declaring itself the sole authority on risk.

I wrote a longer essay directing the mechanics of this framework as it was presented during night 1 of his Antichrist lectures in Nashville. It examines where this synthesis of political theology holds up as a diagnostic took for AI governance, and where it intentionally omits structural theorists like Beck (Risk Society) and Habermas.

Interested to hear how this sub evaluates the application of the Schmittian sovereign exception to modern regulatory capture. Does viewing safety regimes through a political theology lens provide genuine diagnostic utility or does it simply rebrand standard regulatory friction into eschatology?

https://danielforresternash.substack.com/p/what-night-one-left-out

According to Aurelius, everything is already predetermined, but you can still choose how to respond. He wants to have his cake and eat it too: you can’t have a deterministic universe and, at the same time, free choice in your response, since the response ultimately influences that same universe

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.