James, do not push the words too far but look at the intention behind those.
I am not talking about Master/slave issue. That is why i used Learner not Slave. And, that implies that Master means merely a Teacher, not some sort of owner.
James, i have defined that already.
For further clarification, will is intention to make things happen, to change the present status of itself and is the secondary cause of all the manifestation, except consciousness.
That is more of linguistic issue than perception.
I accept the initial stage but not in way as you think. The concept of Initial stage is valid in the context of will only, not consciousness.
I am not saying that there was a beginning or there would be any end. The consciousness is beyond time and eternal, Thus, it was always there and would be always there. So, there is no question of beginning or end. Everything else around it tends to change. All other things come and go because of will.
in other words, or as per RM, Ideally, the consciousness is the state of perfect un-entropy but the problem with it that it cannot remain so because of will. The whole of creation, manifestation or existence (other than consciousness) is entropy or intrusion because of will. So, it comes and goes as well.
Well, this is the impression i also got so far in the last three years on various forums.
Yes, i am saying that consciousness was there. I am not sure about volume. But, it is not a concept, but cartainly, a form of matter, though not physical as we perceive. And, this is the originator of the will.
One declares what is meant by a “ghost” (for example). He need not have the slightest evidence that a ghost exists. Ghosts become a part of his ontology because he declared them as such. His ontology is not subject to evidential approval. His ontology is either applicable to the universe for sake of some purpose or it isn’t useful. But it cannot be said to be untrue unless it has internal incoherence (illogically constructed).
Agreed.
I can tell you that the original intent of the word “ghost” referred to something very real. But because no definition was set forth, the word came to mean something very unreal. RM requires definitions for that reason. Any understanding can be a subset of RM such as “RM:VO” or “RM:ZO” as long as definitions are included and logic concerning those definitions is coherent. But if you cannot either quote a dictionary or write one, then you cannot construct an RM suitable ontology.
Agreed again. I have been put forth the definitions of both of consciousness and Will. And, also can clarify further.
An ontology is either logical or illogical (or perhaps bits and pieces of both). It has nothing to do with “truth”. The ontology is then useful if it assists in the performance of a function such as predicting events or satisfying questions. Evidence is merely the observation that the ontology was or wasn’t useful. Evidence is the verification of the ontology’s worthiness, not its truthfulness. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics are ontologies. One is used to as to predict subatomic behavior. The other is used to create musings for the populous. Neither has anything to do with truth.
Science uses evidence so as to demonstrate that an ontological construct was or wasn’t wrong. It can say nothing about whether it is true. Another ontology could perhaps be equally demonstrated. Which would be “true”?
James, i think that we have some differences here.
I agree that an ontology can be logical or illogical beccause it stands on a particular declayred definition. But, i do not see that much difference in Truth and Worthiness.
You are saying that its worthiness depends on whether it can predicts events within its zone successfully or not, and, that is the only critaria. I also agree with this, but an perfect ontology demands more than that.
An perfect ontology should not able to predict events only, but, its predictions must be facts also. This is to say that an ontology must work successfully with the realty also, not merely concepts. This test decides its worthiness.
An ontology is useless if it answers only in concepts, but those differ from the ground rality. if this happens, then it means that someting must has gone wrong somewhere.
As i see it, at the end of the day, there is no difference between worthiness and trueness. Because, if an onltogy is not right and true, then it is going to fail sooner or later. Because, at some point, it would lose the support of the evedence/observation as these would not match exactly with predictions.
Let us not make it either a hypothetical or technical issue only.
What you are not “supposed” to do is presume that you are a master of a school of thought if the masters of that school have not told you that you are.
The only thing that you can be master of, is your own understanding that perhaps you presume to be equal to that of others before you.
That is true.
But if Buddha did not tell you that you are a master of Buddhism, then you are only a master of your interpretation of Buddhism. And that can perhaps have a name, such as “Mahayana” or “Theravada”. But no one is a master of Siddhartha Gautama except himself.
You are attempting to express an understanding that you believe to be similar or identical to many before you. And you might be right about that, but are you to be so impertinent as to declare yourself a teacher of great ontologies without them informing you that you truly understand them? It is them that you are talking about when you use their words.
James, i got your point and technically you are right too because there is no way of personal confirmation available for me
But, you did not got me either.
At the time when i started, i was neither aware of those scholars nor had any intention to follow. When i came across to something unusual, i became curious to know more and that lead to investigation. During that, i found that my perception about that Unusualness was wrong as it was not unusual at alll, because, people are aware of all this since long and they also found some explanation of that. As time pregressed and i involved more with the issue, i became more and more convinced that, barring some minor differences, they felt and conclude in the same way as mine.
Because, either i did not put enough effort or do not have the capacity to reach that stage, which they acheived, thus, i am taking some of their cogitations as granted, assuming those true. That is why i hesitate givining my name to such a thing, which is not acheived in person completely but relies on some borrowed knowlege too.
James, it is not my impertinence but respect to those greats. To me, it is not a tecnhnical issue but a moral one. You may criticize it on technical grounds and i have accepted that too. But, i know what my intention is behind it and that is what really matters to me.
My understanding is called “Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology” and makes no attempt to be similar to anything before it (whether it actually is or not). It is merely what it is. I am only the “master” of it because I created it… from scratch. I could use some assistance in that regard, but such isn’t likely.
That is true as you know the most about RM because it is your brainchild.
But James, if i learn some of it from you and use it for my purpose whithout mentioning your name, then it is cheating and immoral to me, whether technically right or wrong.
with love,
sanjay