Have you “merely” been threatened or even been physically attacked?
Perhaps it would be better anyway, not to speak of physical “laws”, but of physical rules. But on the other hand, what would be changed? after that change? The words would have got a different meaning - little by little -, not more.
“Socially attacked”, not physically beaten up. I wasn’t raised in a Chinese or Arab country. Although a physical beating might have been far better in the long run. My conflict with the second “LAW” is what led to me inventing that “perpetual motion machine of the second type” that I had mentioned, “KD”. KD is an “attractor system”, but again, there is no “attracting” involved, merely “trapping”. The KD device traps molecules into a higher pressure chamber and then releases them, then traps them again. then releases them again. Through each cycle, thermal energy is being absorbed by the molecules and then converted to mechanical energy when released. That kind of thing pisses off the globalists because the “energy crisis” was a paramount false flag. Anyone suggesting a viable solution was to be silenced.
A more modern day “social attack” is this;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LL9Jnos-GA[/youtube]
That is why it is important to document “Definitional Logic” using “Proper Logical Presentation”. The words being used as well as the logical reasoning are all explicated in the documents. So even if the words change, the older and intended usage is documented along with the reasoning. Think how different the entire world would be if the Bible had been formed with a lexicon appended. Thousands of years of arguing and conflict would have been avoided and mistakes corrected.
And another small bit about the formation of the universe … “How God Creates”;
And even “Absolute Material Law”:
“Laws are actually material entities and actually nothing else really exists at all” - does that mean that you think there is merely matter, thus no spirit, merely material reality, thus no spiritual reality, or (in other words) that spirit reality and material reality are the same, and we have merely different words for them, so that matter and spirit are either spirit or matter?
Matter and spirit are actually just different concentrations of the same thing. “Mass and energy” are of the same substance, merely more and less concentrated. That substance is “Affectance” in an infinite variety of concentrations or “affect upon affect” and nothing more, also known as the “Changing of the changing”. The only thing being affected or changed is the affecting or changing. There exists no other substance at all.
The “law” is that which is affected least, yet affects most. Laws come in degrees/strengths, as do affects. The law that never changes (is least affected) is that which is the “most material”, “matters most”, is “most solid”, has the “most affect”. What we call “substance” is the application of the law. And the less the law is applied, the less it exists. And without the law, there is no existence. The application of the law is existence. But it is only the law that is applying itself. Thus the “law” is the application of the law and thus IS the existence. Without the law, there is no existence and without existence, there is no law.
It is a somewhat unnecessary philosophical point unless you happen to want to know the infinite details of the make of existence. The most extreme existence is the immutable law applying itself to the most extreme degree.
That is exactly what I meant.
What is your definition of “law” then?
By the way:
What do you think about the following classification?:
There are mathematics, logic (philosophy), linguistics, semiotics on the one side which is more spiritual than material, and there are physics, chemistry, biology, economy (incl. sociology and others) on the other side which is more material than spiritual. So we have:
|Mathematics||Logic (Philosophy)||Linguistics||Semiotics| “versus” |Physics||Chemistry||Biology||Economy (Sociology a.o.)|
This is not merely meant in the sense of scientific disciplines, but also and especially in the sense of existence at all.
There are two sides of existence: a more spiritual than material and a more material than spiritual which are different concentrations of the same thing and interconvertible (cp. mass and energy).
And the following is a crude emulation of what the space inside and immediately outside of a space ship (near non-existence) would look like (assuming that you could see EMR) if that ship was traveling at 0.8 the speed of light.
If you notice, there is an observable direction of flow but otherwise it looks the same at the prior “still frame”. That effect plays into answering the Stopped Clock Paradox (I don’t know what that dark corner is about 
).
Any light approaching the ship must travel through that “moving space”. Light reflecting off of a high speed ship will not reflect at the same reflection angle as normal. The effect of that will be that the ship appears to be located where it isn’t.
To me it is obviously a mere issue of focus. The spiritualists are focused on behaviors and the materialists are focused on objects. Both often claim that the other doesn’t “really” exist. But it is a false dichotomy.
My earlier point is that what we think of as “immutable law”, is merely the extreme of what we call “matter”. It isn’t terribly relevant to know that, but it merges the much believed separation between the “divine” and the “mortal” or the mental/conceptual and the physical.
And btw, as always, it might be worth noting that concern applies to psychological, sociological, and economic principles as well. 
The reverse is also true.
Yes.
Why false? Because for you dichotomies do not exist, right?
But actually a law is spiritual.
So again: What is your definition of “law”?
What is your definition of “spiritual”?
The word “spirit” is often given two meanings;
A) principle of behavior or its design, process, or conceptual form
B) behavior itself, the processing in action
The behavior itself (or “process”) has size, therefore is physical. The principle of behavior has no size, therefore is conceptual. But both forms have affect. The principle is that which has affect yet no size of its own. For a principle to gain physical existence, something must be “obeying/following the principle”. The more behavior there is obeying the principle, the more represented the principle is in physical reality and is therefore “larger” and more powerful. The principle becomes physical and material by being obeyed.
Similarly, the concept of a dog has no size to it. And if there were no physical dogs in the universe, the concept would have no representation in physical reality. A physical dog would not exist. The concept of a dog becomes a physical existence when there is an instance of “dog” being physically represented.
All principles are obeyed by at least some minuscule portion of the infinite universe. But there is one principle that is obeyed by the entire universe at all times. There could be no universe without it. And even though the principle in itself has no size, because literally the entire universe is obeying it, it is “all-powerful” with the ultimate and infinite affect. Thus that principle is very physical and “real”.
Looking again at that graph;
The one principle that is always obeyed, is in the upper-right corner on that graph. The universe itself is its “embodiment”.
So laws are physical when being obeyed, but merely conceptual when not obeyed.
Communism and socialism are concepts, and have physical existence only when obeyed. Jesus has physical existence as long as his principles are being generally obeyed, even if not very well. My principles are generally obeyed by literally all living things, just not very well. Homosapian cannot “see” (mentally) my principles and thus cannot obey them consciously very well. Yet without them, there could be no life. The better he comes to see them, the more he will obey them, because he will be them. And as we are discussing on the other thread, if Man doesn’t wake up enough to them, the machines will (read my signature).
First of all I give you a dictionary example:
Also according to Langenscheidt “geistig” means “intellectual, mental, (incorporeal) spiritual”, “geistlich” means “spiritual, … ecclesiastical, clerical,” and “geistvoll” means “witty”.
The word that fits best to “spiritual”: “geistig”, and “geistig” means “intellectual, mental, (incorporeal) spiritual”.
So my favourite definition of “spiritual” is “intellectual, mental”.
That is very different to what the dictionaries “say”, for example Langenscheidt again:
Also according to Langenscheidt “Geist” means “spirit, (Verstand) mind, intellect”, “Verstand” means “understanding, intelligence, intellect, brains”, “Sinn” means “sense”, and “Temperament” means “temperament, … spirits”.
The word that fits best to “spirit”: “Geist”, and “Geist” means “spirit, (Verstand) mind, intellect”.
Note: “Anorganic things” mean merely “physical-chemical things”.
No. That is option (A).
“Incorporeal” resolves to it “having no size” and “nothing obeying it”.
A thought/design/idea/concept/principle/law that has nothing obeying it, has zero affect and thus has zero physical existence.
But, James, your definition of “spiritual” - your “option (A)” - is far away from the common definition.
They seem the same to me.
How is “design”, “conceptual form”, and “principle of a behavior” NOT = “intellectual, mental”?
I would say that the first and the third of that examples do not fit so much like the second example (“conceptual form”).
Then what is a “design” if not a “conceptual form” (or “concept of the form”)?
And the “principle of the behavior” is merely the description, a mental thought of the relationships.
So I don’t see how either of those could not be “mental”.
Yes, that’s right becuse they could be “mental” but - for me - that isn’t enough to be the “best” definition, although … 
In German the English word “design” has become a loanword: “Design” - for example used in the word composition “Internet-Designer” (“internet designer”). Do you know what internet designer means? “Design” actually means in German “Gestaltung”. “Designer” actually means in German “Gestalter”. For example: a “Raumgestalter” means a “designer” (“Gestalter”) of a “room” (“Raum”), thus what you call an “interior decorator” or “interior designer”. The first word association I have when I hear or read the word “design” is not “spirit” - I can guarantee you.
The creator of the universe - in premodern times there was no doubt that it was God - is sometimes also called “designer”.
But “the design” (not “the designer”) is “the form” itself, the idea in the mind into which to “mold the environment - gestalt”. In ancient times, especially with Plato, the form itself (if perfect) was considered “a divine entity”. A perfect square was a divine entity. And many used the word “spirit” to refer to those entities, whether forms of living entities or not.
For years, I have stated that the word “spirit” gets conflated between “perfect forms” and “actual behaviors”. In scriptures, it is used both ways. An “angel” in Catholicism is “an idea” or “thought”, similar to Platonic entities. But a “spirit” is an action, often brought about by a thought. Often God is referred to as “the highest angel”, meaning the greatest, all-encompassing thought/idea. People trying to find and form that “highest thought” into society is what has caused a great, great deal of serious trouble, especially when they conceive the highest thought to be one requiring the killing of many people (as the science-secularists do today). When their idea requires the murder of a great many people, they say, “God commanded it”, meaning merely that the idea requires it in order to be manifest.
So to me, the greater issue isn’t one of who is using which words, but rather the aspiration of them trying to arrange for the highest idea being the governance of Man, the Ubermensch. Those are the “Godwannabes” because their highest ideal always insists that THEY are on top dictating to everyone else (if they even allow anyone else to live at all). Secularists prefer using a machine to be that dictator controlling or manipulating the thoughts of all people so as to be their “perfect ideal governor” = “God” or “Man(ager)”. But look who is programming their machine.
To you, does “zero physical existence” also mean “zero existence at all”? I remind you: According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. That which has “zero existence” could have a “spiritual” existence.
If we want to talk reasonably, we must first agree on the words (logemes, lexemes) that we use, thus we must define.
If we say “‘the design’ (not ‘the designer’) is ‘the form’ itself, the idea in the mind into which to ‘mold the environment - gestalt’”, then it is okay, so that we can use it in connection with “spirit”, although the word “design” has also a different meaning.