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.
If the word “spirit” has really “become ambiguous”, then it should also not refer “to the physical realm”. In this case “ambiguous” means that the reference is not clear, thus there is no refernce to both the conceptual realm and the physical realm.
That is why I said, let’s just not use it. When a word has become ambiguous, using it merely leads to more confusion and chaos. Clarity is important.
I think the Greek word „nous“, the German words „Geist“, „Vernunft“, „Verstand“, „Intellekt“, „Idealität“, „Ideal(e)“, „Idee“, „Begriff“, „Vorstellung“, „Konzept“, „Plan“, and others describe very well what you mean by „conceptual realm“. Strangely but according to what you said, the English word „spirit“ doesn’t fit very well, although its German translation is usually „Geist“. Nevertheless, I should prefer to follow your advice and avoid as much as possible the word „spirit“ when it comes to the „conceptual realm“.
„Nous“: „Vernunft“, „Geist“, „Denkkraft“, „Einsicht“.
„Vernunft“: „reason“.
„Geist“: „spirit“, „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „genie“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „apprehension“, „brain“, „sense“, „genius“.
„Denkkraft“: „think(ing) strength“.
„Einsicht“: „insight“ „inspection“, „intelligence“.
„Verstand“: „understanding“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „brains“.
„Intellekt“: „intellect“.
„Idealität“: „ideality“.
„Ideal(e)“: „ideal(s)“.
„Idee“: „idea“.
„Begriff“: „concept“, „definition“, „term“, „idea“, „notion“, „conception“.
„Vorstellung“: „imagination“, „representaion“, „idea“, „conception“.
„Konzept“: „concept“, „conception“, „draft“, „draught“.
„Plan“: „plan“, „map“, „programme“, „project“, „schedule“, „scheme“.
Realize that all I am saying is that because the word “spirit” gets used to mean two different things without making it clear which the author intends, I would prefer to not use the word when talking about very exacting things such as RM:AO. The word can be misleading.
Something to think about concerning the concept of “force” as it is used in physics is that the concept is what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” and didn’t agree with it. The Newtonian concept of forces, attraction and repulsion, was that two bodies with absolutely nothing between them, would attract or repel each other depending on their mass and/or charge potential. That actually requires “magic” because it is implying that each body is being affected by another far away without anything between or touching either body.
This is another example of empirical evidence being misleading. The empirical evidence is that the two bodies respond to each other and yet it can clearly be seen that absolutely nothing is between them. Of course the truth is that just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That is why logic is required beyond the physical evidence. And that logic is called “metaphysics”.
And that is why I say that “forces” don’t actually exist. They are an aberrant effect of the gradient affectance field that is between the two bodies causing the bodies to behave with respect to the other. They bodies migrate with respect to their immediate surroundings. They don’t sense the presence of the distant body. If you modify that field, the bodies will respond accordingly regardless of any other body that might be around.
Both Newtonian physics and Einstein’s Relativity are merely illusions that provided for better predictions than what they had before. But a method for predicting is not a law of the universe, merely a short-cut tool with which to get a little closer to knowing what is going to happen even if you have no idea as to why.
RM:AO is all about “Why?” - the “Meta-physics”, the Logic.
Throughout his adult life Goethe, for example, fought Newton’s physics.
Ever notice how anyone who challenged the mainstream of his day, despite being right, ended up with a record of having mental problems? … just coincidence of course. Yet those who were actually wrong, are recorded as “geniuses” of their day.
Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German “Zeitgenosse” (“time accomplice”, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.
What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton’s political power that made him and his “laws” famous. If he hadn’t had this political power, he and his “laws” would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.
What “other Faustian theories”?
The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn’t want to list themin my last post. In this case, it doesn’t matter wether they are “right” (“true”) or “wrong” (“false”) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, … and so on.
I’m not sure that I can discern a “Faustian theory” from anything else. It seems that no matter what reasonable theory one has, it could be dubbed “Faustian”. Can you give an example of a theory that would be something reasonable, even if not correct, that would be consider non-Faustian?
Yes, I can. The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what “nature”, “physics”, “universe”, “life”, … means. This is even perceptible when you read i.e. Zinnat’s texts because they indicate, although not always, his belonging to the Indian culture. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own “worlds”, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how “science” was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka or Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, …). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called “science” nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevebted or prevent the developmet of a real science.
You may say (for example): “there wre the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)”. Alright, but they weren’t like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous “science” and “technique / technilogy”. You may see what it means to have a more religious “science” and “technique / technilogy” when you look at the current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment” (“Aufklärung”). It is comkparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment” (“Aufklärung”) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an “enlightenment” (“Aufklärung”), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.
Visit the Faust museum:
Faust Museum in Knittlingen (Germany).
Knittlingen is also the place of birth of Johann Georg Faust (c. 1480 – c. 1541).
I’m not arguing with you but I need a specific example of a theory that is very “non-Faustian” and explanation why it isn’t.
Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of “relativity”, “gravitational force”, “electromagnetic force”, “strong nuclear force”, “weak nuclear force”, " speed of light " “thermodynamics”, “quantum”, “big bang”, “inflation of the universe”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, …?
That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The “scientists” of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.
My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.
In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), “scientists” or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call “science” lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.
The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called “Middle Ages” but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.
That is my firm conviction.
I’m afraid that has already happened.
My understanding of Faust is that he was a character best known for his “dance with the Devil” (meaning skepticism, doubt, hedonism, and magic). He sought to understand the world, material reality (hence the physical sciences), certainty, freedom, and power. And being so focused, lost all sense of morality. My similar “dance with the Devil” turned out differently. In my case all doubt and magic got banished in the face of irrevocable certainty while any skepticism was/is invited, leaving me with an irrevocable morality (where real science eventually leads). I played the game differently (dancing to a different tune even though from the same “fiddler on the roof”. Perhaps I was just tone deaf. 
).
It seems that you are distinguishing any verifiable theories or science as “Faustian” and others as religious (dependent upon handed down knowledge).