Pezer wrote:Your theory has emerged again in my mind as completely valid, and worthy of at least most of the importance you and yours give it.
Good. I must focus on the logic of the theory itself, not let myself be led to try to capsulate it in other logics.
I like the way science gets valued, it works. It remains to be seen to what detail what part of science adheres to value ontology, doesn't lose the ability to be its handmaiden.
If value ontology is correct, all of science would be interpretable as adhering to it. Otherwise the theory simply isn't correct. Science is, if anything, a testing ground
for what can be perceived as
real. It does not give/tell us however what is valuable. It does not take into account perspective, mind, to what
a reality is real. So far, there is a superstition regarding what this real-ness is -- we (are led to) think that it is objectivity, totality. But the realness of "reality" is for a large part due to a very consistently held perspective, which is not effortlessly given or self-evident, but rather a matter of methodically selective valuing.
I still don't connect with the importance of the "yes and the no", the truth of what you say about it seems to me not to be self evident, and not to be essential to the logical cohesion of the... theory?
It is indeed not at all essential.
What trully stands out is this: "How can anything exist if it does not posit itself? The notion "it is simply there" is what is absurd. There is no "simply is". There is only acting, positing. And I have answered the question, several times: by accident, enabled by the absence of its active impossibility."
But I value it only after slicing off the "only" and "enabled by the absence of its active impossibility." Why go beyond? Outside? Wherefore comes the idea that you can know such a thing? Or even infer it? If, like you sway(edit-say) (and I agree), logic is an expansion and not a discovery, an uncovering?
This, I think, makes up for the small part of your pride in this theory that I find unwarranted.
For me to clearly understand, which part of the formulation do you like and which would you cut off? Could you phrase the statement as you would like to see it?