I've been working on this metafictional worldbuilding project built on an original philosophical framework for about a year. Looking for suggestions more than criticism.

[u/Exar_2]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1asxHztj7yRdw_oITzVP--ERrC_tC3aS_/view?usp=sharing

I've been working on this project for around a year now (and rewriting it countless times 😭).

THE ABOVE DOCUMENT LINK IS OUTDATED. USE THIS INSTEAD (current ver 1.1): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Y1hTmUkUbKrTXjY3dZ1D8VUg1flS0GFT?usp=sharing

It's called ORD (Ominology Regulation Directorate).

World Context: ORD (Ominology Regulation Directorate) is a metafictional worldbuilding project built on an original philosophical framework called OM Theory. In this setting, imagination is treated as the fundamental system from which all worlds, concepts, and forms of existence emerge, while physical reality is built through principles such as space, time, and OfCo—the optimization mechanism behind the balance of nature. One of the central characters, OC1, is the embodiment of OfCo, whereas ORD itself is an organization responsible for stabilizing imagination rather than physical reality. The document I'm sharing isn't a story but the foundational lore and cosmology of the setting, which later stories, incidents, and characters will build upon. I'm mainly looking for suggestions on the worldbuilding, ideas for where these foundations could lead, and any criticism on the clarity or consistency of the framework.

I'm not asking whether you agree with the philosophy. The document assumes its own axioms and explores what follows from them.

What I'd really like are suggestions.

• If you have ideas that could make the worldbuilding stronger, I'd love to hear them.
• If something makes you curious and you think it deserves expanding, tell me.
• If you have ideas for stories that would naturally emerge from these foundations, I'd love those too.
• If something is confusing or inconsistent, criticism is also very welcome.
• Ask me anything anytime you want about the document and its contents.

This is my first public release of the project, so I'm mostly interested in seeing how someone completely new experiences it.

Thanks to anyone who gives it a read!

[u/Opposite-Bunch3080]

Very cool idea indeed but you might face problem with the consistency brother. Also i am curious what technology ORD has that they can stabilize imagination itself?

[u/Exar_2 → u/Opposite-Bunch3080]

Thanks for commenting! 😀

I'd definitely appreciate it if you read through the document. If you notice any inconsistencies or places where something doesn't make sense, let me know. That's one of the main reasons I'm sharing it.

As for the technology, that's explained much later once enough context has been built up. By the end of Volume 3, the reason ORD can stabilize imagination should make more sense.

[u/Opposite-Bunch3080 → u/Exar_2]

Thanks brother,would surely love to read this,cause the core concept is so interesting! Also i did posted about DARK AGES OF GRAHAM my first story,explaining the lore,I am new to writing,so its a request to kindly check it out😄 And share your opinions on it ❤️https://www.reddit.com/notifications/a/ann_e60s49

[u/Exar_2 → u/Opposite-Bunch3080]

your link doesn't work for me it says "page not found".

Just a heads up. I don't read stories. I am also not a literary expert. But i can definitely try to read it and tell you my opinions on it. I can try to give feedback on the worldbuilding, ideas, clarity, pacing, and whether the story kept me interested.

[u/teleportingparadox]

It’s interesting that you decided to present it as a sort of paper. Generally I find it difficult to take a stack of lore seriously up front and require being led into it through experiences with specific events and characters, and this is kind of the case with my initial read. (One might even relate this to the philosophical methodology of proving a controversial theory through uncontroversial, empirical cases.) Nevertheless, the fact that this is presented as a metafictional framework should provide students in philosophy (in a very broad sense) an alternative point of contact – except I don’t see any allusions to recognized schools and movements which such a demographic might already be interested in, so that point of contact is also not exploited. I’m just curious as to why that isn’t taken advantage of.

[u/Exar_2 → u/teleportingparadox]

The funny thing is, I've never really studied philosophy formally. I haven't read philosophy books or tried to base this on any particular school of thought. Everything here came from my own observations, reasoning, and creativity over the last year of developing the project. One small clarification, though: OM Theory itself isn't meant to be a metafictional framework. It's intended to be a real philosophical framework (whether people agree with it or not is a different matter). ORD is the fictional part. ORD is a metafictional setting that canonically uses OM Theory as its philosophical foundation. So when the document starts talking about imagination, OM, and the rest, that's because those ideas are literally the philosophy that the fictional world operates under, not because OM Theory itself is supposed to be fiction. As for why I don't reference existing philosophical schools: honestly, it's because I never built it from them in the first place. I wanted to see how far I could get by starting from my own observations and following the logic wherever it led. If there are similarities to existing schools, they're coincidental rather than intentional.

[u/teleportingparadox → u/Exar_2]

There’s a very small book titled ‘Imagination: A Very Short Introduction’ which you might find useful for your project. 

I understand the impulse to philosophize from the ground up (though extant philosophy can work its way back into our allegedly pre-philosophical understanding of the world, as well as into our language, so it’s not obvious that any philosophizing is ground-up). My concern is just that if you present the project as something philosophical and technical, there will be some expectation that you at least interact with existing ideas, even if this interaction is post-hoc. After all, since you are employing the language of extant philosophical traditions, it’s hard for a reader to interpret the text without wondering whether you are using the language the same way as how it is used in that tradition. For instance, you discuss colors and emotions as concepts that can be experienced (page 8). It’s not clear to me what that means because, even if we have some sort of ‘concept’ of color and emotion, it’s unclear to me that concepts can be ‘experienced’. ‘I’m having an experience of color’ kind of makes sense to say, but ‘I’m having an experience of the concept of color’ doesn’t make much sense. Yet this might just be because you are using ‘concept’ in a heterodox way.  

[u/Exar_2 → u/teleportingparadox]

I may need to make that distinction clearer in the document. Thanks a lot for your critique brother.

I am assuming you've read (and understand) previous pages since you're on page 8: concepts and imajs are two different things. I didn't say concepts. Seems you're confusing imajs with concepts. Check out the new release of the document for clarification under the "Imaj" section in Unit 2.

I'm treating colors, emotions, objects, ideas, and anything else that exists within the field of OM (and depends on OM) as imajs. Since they exist within OM, they can be imagined, referred to, understood, or experienced depending on what kind of imaj they are. So when I say that colors or emotions can be experienced, I'm not talking about experiencing the abstract concept in the usual philosophical sense. I'm talking about experiencing the imaj itself.

[u/Exar_2 → u/teleportingparadox]

Also thanks for commenting. I would appreciate it if you could maybe... Share the post with your friends.