Andrius Kulikauskas: Montijn van Loo gave me a set of questions that I will be answering here. I invite more questions!
Questions Once Asked about Wondrous Wisdom
Where can I read your document, where I can understand your story from A-Z. If I want to understand your world, where should I begin and what journey should I traverse?
A good overview of my world is my video (and transcript) Welcome to Math 4 Wisdom, an Investigatory Community for Absolute Truth, which I made in 2023.
Living by Truth: From Relative to Absolute (about 30 MB) is a comprehensive introduction to my philosophy. I wrote it in 2014. It is about 20 pages of text but also 320 illustrations, one per page. I use images, words and diagrams to communicate my ideas but also my ways of thinking, my attitude, perspective, values, culture, intent and purpose.
In 2025, I wrote the proposal, Computational Indicators of Consciousness: 3 Quantum Symmetries and 8-fold Bott Periodicity. This is an overview of my understanding of three levels of awareness (three minds) by which we experience life. I also walk through the metaphysical questions that have led the way for me:
- How can I know everything and apply that knowledge usefully?
- How can we organize a science of subjective human experience?
- How can we define the simplest ideas?
- Is there no end to the simplest structures?
- How can we model not just statics but also dynamics?
In 2025, I wrote the proposal, Modeling Subjective Human Experience as an Interplay of Passive, Active and Willful Inference. This is a research program to uncover and document three languages by which I think we live our lives: argumentation (by which issues come to matter), verbalization (by which meaning arises) and narration (by which events happen).
Along with that proposal, I presented my Relevant Achievements. I singled out 14 presentations that I gave on various aspects of my philosophy.
My CV has links to the text and slides for more than 40 academic presentations which I gave from 2014 to 2018 about my philosophy. Separately, I have organized my presentations in English and in Lithuanian.
Vocabulary of Wondrous Wisdom is an outline with links to dozens of conceptual frameworks and hundreds of concepts that make up Wondrous Wisdom. There you can find links to my writings.
What would then be the range of your framework(s)? That is, all questions it intends to answer and all answers it has realized. What are examples? Is your range broad and everything? Like [Ken Wilber's] four quadrants of life (4Q)?
My goal since childhood is to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. Knowing everything means, first of all, having a comprehensive view of the big picture, as if I was sitting in the lap of God. My vision would be weaker and blurrier than God's but I would have her central vantage point. Furthermore, I would know how to answer any particular question. I would be able to crawl out to it, figure it out, and then crawl back to my central vantage point. Applying that knowlege usefully means nurturing an investigatory culture as we are with Econet. Letting go of what we know, our prejudices, and what we don't know, our preconceptions, we can listen to our investigatory mind by which we are cognizant of Wondrous Wisdom, the language of conceptual frameworks by which we align our answering mind, by which we know, and our questioning mind, by which we don't know.
The sum of wisdom is that God does not have to be good. God is unconditional, good is God within conditions, life is the fact that God is good, but eternal life is understanding that God does not have to be good, appreciating that life is not fair and must be unfair if we are to learn forever, grow forever, live forever, here and now. There are four eightfold frameworks by which we transcend ourselves by choosing God over ourselves, thereby transcending our body's needs, our mind's doubts, our heart's expectations and our will's values. There are four 24-fold sciences by which we encompass God, I, You and Other. But there is much to be investigated further, such as how the three minds manifest themselves, and how they experience languages by which issues come to matter, meaning arises and events happen.
What is then the precision of your framework? How many questions yield the same answer?
The goal is to have a science of our inner life much as we have a physical science of our outer life. In terms of practice, this means developing the instruments (investigatory methods) to measure (describe) relevant phenomena with as much accuracy as desired. In terms of theory, this means having a formal language like mathematics which can model the experience definitively, or even absolutely, if the theory turns out to be truly fundamental. Wondrous Wisdom is meant to be more fundamental than mathematics, to describe the metaphysics which grounds all we conceive, in a way that that is unconditional, thus more basic than any set of axioms. The goal is to be able to derive all that we can conceive, including all the ways that mathematics unfolds, and then to be able to situate accurately within that all we experience practically. We then have a formal language, a scientific practice, and an investigatory community by which we can foster deep agreement and meaningful disagreement.
The goal is to allow an investigator to take up any question, investigate it meaningfully, and arrive at an answer that they personally find satisfactory and that they can share meaningfully with others. Thus the same question may understandably yield different answers. It may also happen that investigators asking different questions arrive at the same answer. Just as in science, the underlying concepts may distinguish certain phenomena and integrate others.
You say you established math4wisdom to find people supportive of you and your efforts, but next to that you also insist on teaching us. Does that mean we support you by letting you teach us?
Yes. Math4Wisdom is for those who appreciate me, who want to understand me, learn from me, and be taught by me, in order to work with me to foster an investigatory culture - Econet, a science of subjective experience, and a shared language of wisdom that makes the most of Wondrous Wisdom. My thinking is very unusual and for people to think along with me they need to embrace many aspects of my personal investigatory culture which I myself need to make explicit. Crucially, they need to learn by investigating, by having a question they care about and giving lots of thought on how best to investigate it. That means letting go of everything we know (our answers) and everything we don't know (our questions) and considering what's left, which is how answers and questions fit together (by way of our investigations). Wondrous Wisdom is a structural language by which a world of questions and a world of answers fit together.
I will say more about my previous efforts. As a child, there was nobody I could talk to, aside from God, who could relate to my personal quest. In 1982, as a seventeen year old, a freshman at the University of Chicago, I started to document the conceptual structures, the divisions of everything, that are now the building blocks of Wondrous Wisdom. I talked to anybody who would listen and over the years made several close friends in various disciplines with whom I could share my thoughts. In 1988-1989, I spent a year of independent study on my own philosophy at Vilnius University in Soviet-occupied Lithuania. In 1996, my friend Joe Damal, a community organizer in Chicago, encouraged me to apply my philosophy practically, and so meeting with a circle of friends over the next two years I developed and conducted "good will exercises" to address the conflict between truths of the world and truths of the heart. At the end of 1997, I moved to Lithuania and started my business, Minciu Sodas, serving and organizing independent thinkers around the world, until 2010, just before I went bankrupt. We fostered a remarkable culture but I didn't find anybody interested in my own philosophy. From 2014 to 2018, I gave 45 presentations at academic conferences, which helped me write up various parts of it. People found it interesting but nobody wanted to work together. At VGTU, I briefly taught philosophy (how to investigate one's question), ethics (how to design one's own ethical system) and creative writing (how to write a short story). At that time, I organized about ten workshops where my friends and I investigated various questions. Then in 2022, I founded Math4Wisdom to make YouTube videos and make a living from Patreon supporters. I used my Ph.D. in math and show where the philosophical structures arise in advanced mathematics such as the Yoneda Lemma and Bott periodicity. I didn't interest professional mathematicians, except for my old friend John Harland, but I did attract a small circle of supportive investigators, notably ecotechnologist Jere Northrop with whom I started Econet. I am very grateful for our efforts by which we all, myself included, grow as investigators, cultivate a language of wisdom and foster an investigatory culture.
Why and how is this going to be different from the mentorship I described [question me first, and show that there are gaps in my reasoning which I need your help with filling. Do this, by making me think of an answer to these gaps, and by showing why that also does not suffice. Then, if need be, provide me the answer.]?
Typically, I want to help you see your blindspots, what you are not even aware of. Typically, this is not about the thoughts you are thinking but with the way you are thinking and, consequently, the thoughts you are not thinking. It is not about the gaps in your reasoning but on the ways you could be reasoning which you may not be aware of.
I want to show the importance of investigating comprehensively. I appreciate that we have our favorite approaches but a comprehensive investigator should be able to apply just about any approach. In 2010, I collected about 200 examples of investigations I had done and I systematized 48 ways that I investigate. (I think 24 ways are personal and 24 ways are key to Wondrous Wisdom.) That is what I'm teaching and I could do that more explicitly. I am myself learning and can be open to trying out new approaches. I do value interactive learning but I believe especially in each of us working hard on one's own.
What I'm discovering in recent years is that I am a mature, experienced, serious, dedicated, comprehensive, committed thinker in ways that many people are not. People cling to ideas and behaviors that keep them from discovering truth. The problem is not with their thoughts or their "gaps in reasoning". The problem is with the blind spots they live with as thinkers.
- Alfred insists that we only think in words. I teach us to appreciate the many ways we think without words. This is important so that we can recognize and study our mental actions.
- Betty insists that dualism is evil and that we must think holistically. I teach us to appreciate the reality of all ways of thinking - monistic, dualistic, trialistic and more - and consider how they relate to each other.
- Carlos is unwilling to appreciate the opposite point of view. I teach us to be able to argue both sides of any question, just like Thomas Aquinas.
- Debbie is always ready with snappy answers and snappy questions. I teach us to slow down our thinking and be willing to suspend judgement, neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Live with the investigatory mind.
- Elijah believes that he can figure out all of metaphysics in his own head. I teach us that the mind has limits (we can introspect at most six perspectives at once) and that deep intuition is modeled by conceptual frameworks that are larger (typically, eight perspectives). We discover great truths by transcending our own minds. We can do this by studying empirical data, by contemplating Scripture, by appreciating the great debates in the history of philosophy, by keeping track of how our own views change over time, by imagining the big picture or simply God, which is greater than us.
- Freya simply explores ideas that she finds interesting. I teach us that this can have us simply follow and reenforce our unconscious prejudices. If we want to discover truth, and challenge our thinking, we need to make explicit the question we're asking, and then thoughtfully design a relevant investigation, as in physics. Then we're likely to discover that our hunches were wrong. And that's very healthy.
- Gustav has great insight and thinks that it is the height of wisdom. I teach us to consider how does our insight fit in with the big picture and the rest of knowledge.
- Harper wants to philosophize but doesn't want to share the questions, issues, ideas, tools they really care about. I teach us to focus on whatever we can share that we authentically care about.
- Isaac just wants to teach us what they know. I teach us that this is inefficient and unproductive. Instead, I ask us to focus on what we don't know, and then not rush to answer that but consider how to design a good investigation. Our thinking out loud is very supportive of our culture.
- Josephine just cares about their own philosophy. I teach us to care about what others in our group are working on so that we have a supportive environment for all of us.
- Kai focuses on how formal, mathematical expressions might fit together. I teach us to focus on appreciating and identifying the content of our experience first, and then capture that structurally, and only then consider whether and how to express that mathematically.
- Luna demands that I explain myself in words. I teach us that deep truths are nonverbal, that we have to talk around them, that we need to get across the mental actions that evoke them, and reproduce them independently. That is the whole point of the science we are developing.
- Mateo believes that all systems of thought are equally true and equally false. I teach that there is good reason for any authentic thought in its proper perspective but that a science of subjective experience will allow us to generate and make sense of all genuine perspectives. People propose conceptual structures that are often incomplete or redundant or ill defined. A language of wisdom consists of conceptual structures that are well founded, well documented, well understood and fit together properly.
- Nora is highly intuitive but impatient and can't think one step after another. I teach us to appreciate the importance of both the intuitive answering mind and the rational questioning mind. I encourage us to build up our mental muscles in both regards. Chess and math are ways to learn to think several moves ahead.
- Oliver is very intelligent but scoffs at intuition, aesthetics, emotions or anything touchy-feely. I teach us to appreciate not just the rational questioning mind but also develop our intuitive answering side. Empathy for others is a practical skill to develop. We can reach out and engage all manner of people who are different than us, especially those who may benefit from our help, fellowship or solidarity. Contemplating our moods, mulling them over, trying to make sense of them is a way to nurture our intuitive side.
- Penelope insists that we have a collaborative leadership. I teach us, from my experience, that no such environment has ever cared about me and my thinking. I have served and supported many people like me. I am 61 years old, my productive life is ending, and now I need to find those who want to be supportive of me, and my leadership, to make explicit my personal culture inside of me, and make it possible for Wondrous Wisdom to be understood and developed further.
- Quinn insists that I help, teach, mentor them in the way they prefer. I teach us that I am trying to expand our horizons, to have us transcend ourselves, go beyond our usual thinking, and be comprehensive, universal, absolute thinkers. I ask us to be open to being shown different ways, methods, ideas. It's not about whether our ideas are right or wrong. It's about whether we have a comprehensive methodology for developing our ideas.
- Roman insists that we all be treated as equals. I teach us that in some important ways we aren't equals. As an independent thinker, I am much more mature, cognizant, dedicated investigator than the thousands of people I have been blessed to meet. My purpose with the Econet culture is to help people grow so that they would do investigations, would be investigators, and in that sense, we could be equals with shared interests for a supportive culture.
It's very challenging to point out to people their blindness. What I try to do instead is to encourage us all to investigate questions. In particular, I show how I myself investigate questions. I encourage us to support each other in our investigations, to look for connections, to appreciate the relevance of a shared structural language.
Overall, our personal interactions over time make for a shared reality which we can then appeal to. The culture we're making explicit, which is in me but also others, and the culture we're developing further, is fundamental for grounding a language of wisdom. I want to be careful with others and not chase them away. Different people prefer different kinds of interaction. I can ask helpful questions. But I think that there are other ways to try as well, especially if we want to expand our horizons. Certainly, I myself should take the opportunity to try new approaches, as requested.
What is the meaning of everything? And what do you mean with things? And who decides what gets to be a thing or not? Or should one not assume some fundamental multiplicity? And one should rather go top down instead of bottom up, meaning that it is the interpretation that breaks all into parts. But generally, what does it even *mean* to talk about this. And what analytical purposes does it serve?
I notice a lot of numericity, like 3 minds, 8 states of mind, 4 of this, 6 of that, 24 of that and so on. Generally, how do you justify these partitions/categorizations.
How do your works compare to frameworks? That is, a way of seeing the world, and a way of giving answers to questions. I think you said yourself that you have a method of devising conceptual frameworks?
How do you value frameworks? What criterion do you use?
Do your frameworks have mostly theoretical use, just for the sake of answering questions, or also practical benefit, and if so, what?
What is language? How does one bridge the perceptual, like the words, and the cognitive, the idea behind it?
What is meaning? How to speak so that one can be meaningful? What criterion do you have? From what is meaning derived?
Meaning is a quality that a sign may have. Specifically, it is the semiotic identification of the answering mind expressed in terms of icons (sensorial signs, including images or pictures) with the questioning mind expressed in terms of abstract symbols. Thus a picture of a cat is meaningful if breaking up the picture of the cat (in terms of head, tail, legs, whiskers...) corresponds to breaking up the concept of the cat (in terms of head, tail, legs, whiskers...). The fact that a break down, an analysis is possible on both levels is what indicates meaning, and the meaning is the correlation between the two levels.
If there is no breakdown, if there is just a nonsensical mishmash, then there is no meaning. If the breakdown is haphazard, as with the cat, then the meaning is likewise. If the breakdown is in terms of an intrinsic, fundamental, self-defining, absolute structure, then the meaning is likewise.
Overall, there are six qualities of signs, and they are given by the six ways of pairing four levels of knowledge: whether, what, how, why. "Whether" indicates the signified and, as Charles Sanders Peirce noted, there are three kinds of signs - icons, indexes, symbols - and they imply knowledge of what, how, why. For example, suppose the signified is a wine glass. An icon expresses it in terms of sensory images such as a picture of a wine glass. An index refers to it in terms of cause and effect relationships, as when a purple circle on a white tablecloth suggests to us the wine glass. A symbol refers to the wine glass in terms of arbitrarily assigned characters, as with the French word "verre à vin". A picture of a wine glass can be understood by somebody with eyes to see "what" it is. The implications of the purple circle can be understood by somebody with practical knowledge "how" the wine glass functions. Language is not required in either case. But to be able to make sense from the arbitrary letters "verre à vin" or "M P 6" or "葡萄酒杯" that they refer to a wine glass, one has to allow for an entire language, an abstract symbolic world, where all things are related, which implies a vantage point "why". In that sense, using language is like participating in a religious ideology, where we suppose there is a reason for everything, although in practice we mostly just suppose.
The answering mind can refer to the wine glass itself, or to the picture, or to the effects. But the symbol "a b c..." is empty and there is nothing to refer to. The questioning mind holds the symbol or the index or the icon but it can't directly hold the wine glass itself. These are two different ways of conceiving the four levels of knowledge: the materialistic answering mind conceives in terms of the observed and the idealistic questioning mind conceives in terms of the observer.
We can bring together the answering mind and the questioning mind by identifying two levels. We can identify the pictorial icon of the cat with the symbolic world of the concept cat. This identification is the basis for meaning. There are six such identifications.
- Signified = icon. The sign is malleable.
- Signified = index. The sign is modifiable.
- Icon = index. The sign is mobile.
- Index = symbol. The sign is memorable.
- Icon = symbol. The sign is meaningful.
- Signifed = symbol. The sign is motivated.
I think of these as the six qualities of signs. I learned about the first five in a seminar by Don Norman, in 1987, when I was a graduate student at UCSD. My roommate, experimental psychologist Shu-Hong Zhu, invited me. The seminar was in the world's very first Cognitive Science Department, which had just been established at UCSD. Norman was excited about a paper introducing the the "5 M's",David S. Touretzky, Mark Derthick. Symbol Structures in Connectionist Networks: Five Properties and Two Architectures. At the seminar, I noted that the properties seemed to pair four levels of knowledge. This suggested they were profound and implied there should be a sixth property, which I later worked out was "motivated". Sadly, there was and typically is a huge mental gap between me - thinking fundamentally, deeply, profoundly, wisely - and the academic - thinking superficially, shallowly, narrowly, stupidly, ignorantly. My thinking has intrinsic meaning and stands forty years later, as in my talk Divine Understanding and Human Imagination: Face-to-Face by the Gates of Art. An academic isn't thinking in terms of intrinsic meaning but is just drawing pictures of cats as they walk by. I found the "5 M's" paper decades later and was surprised that it didn't have the lasting impact that Norman suggested it would have.
The properties "meaningful" and "motivated" are curious in that a word used for the former ends up getting used for the latter as well. Thus I have been using "meaningful" to say that "this word is meaningful, it has a meaning" but there is another sense in which "meaningful" implies a "meaning in the greater sense of things, from a higher vantage point". Similarly, a word is "significant" if it signifies something but that is typically taken to mean it signifies from a higher vantage point. My claim is that the higher vantage point is actually able to relate to the signified itself, which means that the symbolic context is "motivated" by the signified, it is purposeful, in the big picture. In this way, a symbolic three-cycle can refer to an actual metaphysical three-cycle that it signifies. My main point is that intrinsic structures give us a language of wisdom that profoundly reflects our subjective experience as opposed to ungrounded words and isolated concepts.
How can we speak to be meaningful and to be understood as such? This is a task for both parties. I suppose a crucial point is to distinguish the context, whether it is relative to some matter at hand, or whether we aspire to relate to the big picture, the absolute view. This means caring about each other's understanding of the big picture and where that is relevant or not.
Meaning thus comes with many assumptions. It assumes the distinction between an answering mind, expressing the observed, and a questioning mind, expressing the observer. It assumes the four levels of knowledge (whether, what, how, why) and two ways of conceiving them. Meaning is fundamental for humans. But I think it is better understood as just one of six properties of signs. And we're probably not going to discover that if we just focus on meaning. More fundamental than meaning is the vantage point of the big picture, or simply, God. From the point of view of a primordial, solitary, original God, there is no direct reason for meaning or logic or existence or the universe or other such, all of which are derivative.
Instead of meaning, I myself focus on how to define structures and concepts. Much of that is based on the mental actions that we can take or not. I have much to say about that.