Universe and Time

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.

It isn’t my business to correct every word that has been formed and ambiguously conflated. “Spirit” is not a word that RM:AO uses (much like force and mass). I can explain some of the confusion that has come about concerning many words, but they are not “my” words.

RM:AO is about actual existence, actual affects. Some of the common words that people have created and use fit well. Some do not fit very well. Some words fit only if you use them in one of their multiple meanings. I don’t really care. How other people choose to use and misuse their words is their business.

I can tell from how people use their word “spirit”, that they are often talking about one of two things and seldom distinguish which one they are talking about. Due to that, there is a lot of confusion amongst the people. As I explained before, the word “spirit” has two common usages. One is referring to concepts or ideas. The other is referring to actual physical flow, “energy”. And sometimes they are referring to the concept of a particular flowing.

In RM:AO, I chose, for convenience, to merely allow for a “conceptual realm of existence” and a “physical realm of existence”. The conceptual realm was for the Platonic entities - concepts, independent of physical existence. Plato and others declared in their ontology, that such entities have “always existed”. I don’t really care if you choose to say that they have “always existed” or not. If a concept is not being physically represented, it is having no affect. It can be thought of as a “potential existence void of opportunity”.

The conceptual realm is actually the special case of the physical realm wherein the essence of something (its concept) has been reduced to zero physical presence, yet the concept still “exists”. The conceptual realm is the extreme pole of reduced physicality.

If you had 5 apples in a basket and took one out at a time, you would be reducing the physical presence of the concept called “apple”. When you got down to zero apples, you no longer have any physical presence, but you still have the concept. The concept is still in your mind and has a physical presence there as the concept alone, without actual physical form, merely definition (understanding of the description).

But even without any minds at all, Platonic ontology declares that the concept still “exists”. RM:AO declares that “it only exists within the conceptual realm”, meaning that it has no physical affect although has conceptual affect (the concept of a straight line, for example, affects the concept of a square and triangle).

But the truth is, I don’t really care whether it is said to “exist” or not. Rational metaphysics is called “rational” because it is for addressing achievable goals. Whether something exists yet has no affect at all, is not something RM:AO cares about. A concept within a mind affects that mind and that mind affects that body, thus has physical existence. The possibility of the future existence of a concept is itself a physical existence if it is thought about. A possible existence is, in effect, a “negative presence” or a “hole to be filled”. The “hole” exists in the same way that an electron exists. An electron is a bundle of positive absence, or “reduced existence” from the ambient.

Well, if you want to just use a single definition that is most compatible with me, “spirit” refers to physical motion or behavior and “concept” refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume.

It seems to be a translation problem. “Spirit” as the common translated German word “Geist” also “refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”. “Concept” as the common translated German word “Begriff” („Konzept“, „Idee“) also “refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”. So if I translate those two words - “spirit” and “concept” -, I always get “those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”.

Howsoever, do you agree with me that there are material and non-material forms of existence?

Oh, I see.
Like I said, the word “spirit” has become ambiguous, so let’s just leave that word out and use either “energy” for the essence of any movement and “behavior” for any particular form or type of movement.

I can agree to that. RM:AO allows for a “physical realm of existence” (or “material”) and also a “conceptual realm of existence”. And understand that as the material existence reduces to zero, it approaches the conceptual realm. They share a border at “zero physical existence”.

Ambiguous. Oh, I see.

And there are merely this two realms, because accordong to RM:AO “absolutely zero” does not exist, so a zero realm does also not exist.

Yes, that border of “absolute zero” can never be breached. It is non-existence. Concepts have nothing to do with time or distance. For a concept to become a physical reality, it doesn’t “cross the border”, but rather a physical potential (“situation”) must independently arise such as to form the concept within the physical realm. At that point the concept is a “physical state”.

Principles (“laws”) have that same issue because a principle is merely a special case of a concept. For a principle to physically exist, a situation must arise that constitutes a physical state to represent the principle otherwise the principle has no physical representation and remains independent of time and distance. A “political state” is an example.

So the whole spiritual part of life - for eaxmple principles, “laws”, rules, ideas, and all the other special cases of a concept - would have to remain in the spiritual / conceptual / energetic realm of existence and can’t reach the other realm, the physical / material realm, if a physical potential (as the situation) hadn’t occured.

Well, there you go using the “s” word again after we agreed not to.
The conceptual realm and energy don’t mix. Energy is of the physical realm.

But yes, the potential must arise for a conceptual entity to appear in the physical world. The devil cannot enter your home if you don’t leave the door open to him. A three headed elephant cannot be born into the world if the DNA is not altered into something that would produce a three headed elephant.

Sorry, I worded that very poorly.
I meant to say, “All physical things have more than absolute zero effect upon physical things, but ONLY through time.”

Here you said that I should use the word “energy” instead of “spirit”:

Here you said “spirit” and “energy” don’t mix:

The conceptual realm has no movement or changing = concepts or ideas.
The physical realm is for all movement or changing = energy or behavior.