To make it easier for us to communicate, I’d ask you to define “reality”.
That’s what I’ve tried to do with VO.
The conclusion is that standard/value (as I’ve called self-valuing) logically precedes value - i.e. it comes first in the argument.
VO is a logical method of defining reality and its build-up, its process of evolution.
Reality is “what is real”. “Real” is a subjective value-judgment, be it a very fundamental one.
What is required for such a judgement? That there is something that “engages reality” - i.e. a resistance.
This is where VO goes ‘deeper’ than RM - RM states bits of Potential to Affect - VO defines those bits in terms that translate in their potential.
Within the VO logic (and it is just a logical method to describe reality, not reality itself nor the only way of describing it), for reality to precede value would mean that reality precedes itself.
Well, value ontology refers to both the banana and the subatomic particles. And the atomic particles. And the guy who eats the banana. And the stomach-function of the banana.
Does RM refer only to the subatomic particle?
All are valuer and valued. Their existence is a conflict between being valued and valuing. Trillions of slight differences and gazillions of permutations per moment, we are at war with ourselves, and RM is like a nuclear weapon. VO is like a life-boat.
Take the word “human” as figuratively as you possibly can. Take some drugs if you nee to, but get there.
VO refers to man and from man to the molecule. From the molecule to the atom. From the atom the currents of affect (I adopted affectance from RM) and within the currents of affect it recognizes the human. A shared property is met.
RM refers from the “human” at absolute near zero level, the ‘infinitesimal bit of PtA’.
VO recognizes this bit as equal to a human in the essential property of not being nothing - i.e. immediately transient: resistance.
Resistance is the most complicated factor in the calculation, as it is purely conditional, contingent and circumstantial. No? Thus it merits to set out a perimeter for predictions and power-moves, a sphere wherein one can be certain that calculations will be correct.
in VO, this perimeter is huge. That is because the terms are general. But amazingly, they are clear. VO does require all of the other sciences. Its terminology is not separate from mathematics or social-dramatic performance management, english french or sign-language. It’s also not a claim on the world. It’s the science of claims on the world.
The whole of our social affect is the heat of resistance and movement, so conditioned that it is terrible, no knowledge is available except the punishing data of crude collisions. Science works this way. The unfortunate aspect of science is that it leaves us indifferent to subjective truth (such as superstitions, magical family ancestry, people with superpowers, ghosts and spirits, personal energies ), But that means it also leaves little room for remorse, for projecting inward of responsibility, for self-study. Scientific selfstudy works in types, the body is analyzed in terms of a magnified square, so to speak. It is not ‘made’ to do good to the one who wields it. It is meant to do it but that is the problem. It does not “emerge”.
In RM atoms emerge out of a code, which is built on a standard.
VO is that standards study. It is in effect deeper than RM, thus wider in terms of predictions but not nearly as exact in its electronic power.
So in affect i say: fine - let them have their science. I am not going to be watching over a nuclear arsenal. Let some maniacs do that, they can be relied on to always make the same manic decisions. No sane person is that predictable.
They’re like supertoxic particles who keep the supertoxic weapons from the normal guys.
No.
This is why I was interested to see if FC was deterred by the logical conclusion of such a position - that value isn’t real.
Precisely.
RM is clearly a culmination of things that JSS considers to be most valuable. Yet he still tries to irrationally proclaim that RM precedes such an origin (that must necessarily be its origin).
This is the same sloppiness upon which scientists attempt to found their field. Not that RM is anything other than an attempt to adjust science through re-definition.
My philosophy originates more fundamentally than both VO and RM, in pre-meaningful experience. Value is merely one aspect of this starting point.
But James, where did i refute this?
One has to know all the whats in order to complete the sequence.
I am not saying that observation does not assume. Of course, it does. That is why logic and reasoning is required to check it by developing an ontology and see where it leads. But, nothing can be initiated without initial observation.
You have been developed JSSRM by now, but, even this could not be done without some observations by you, which you would have taken into accont some years back. And, even now, you still have to confirm physically JSSRM by running it on computer. I do not think that anyone can escape this route. One cannot reason from nothing as there must be something either to agree or to refute.
I agree with all this.
Again, i agree with this, except that the image stored in time and space ever dissipates.
That is the difference between our perceptions.
Dissipation is a relative issue and that depends on the state of the observer, not the information itself. Information of the events tends to travel through space-time by the speed of light and crosses the observer, and he notices that for a very short span of moment, but that information never dies, merely moves on. Hypothetically, if an observer would also be able to travel with the speed of light, then that information would never be able to cross him.
This actually happens as that eternal consciousness within us acts as an beyond time independent observer, which records and stores each and every tiny and continuous flow of information within it. That is what we call memory. It is some sort of eternal video recording and files stored within can be replayed anytime in the future. Mind has nothing to do with the memory as it is only the mean to stimulate the consciousness.
If that is not the case, then how can we ever remember any event, because, that event has been passed through us years ago? And, where are all those files of memory stored in the brain?
One cannot replay the event if there is no backup recording. And, no backup recording is ever possible for any such entity, who cannot be complete independently observe events from the space-time.
I do not disagree with this as have been already accepted that this is not a perfect method as it relies on trial and error.
James, the point is that affectance cannot ever manifest cognitive capacity, because, it merely acts, acts and acts, nothing else. It does not feel or think about its acts and consequences.
We also have difference about this concept of Conceptual realm. I do not agree with your difenition of it as holding it immutable. It is very much changeable and Live as other realm and very much affected my the same affectance, which governs our realm.
[u]This is to say that its residing entities are not merely concepts but very much alive like us. And, that realm exists in a different space-time zone. But, both realms affects and got affected by each other as there is no isolation.
The only thing that is truly immutable, unchangeable or eternal exists, that is consciousness[/u].
I know what you are referring to.
James, believe me or not, i can do it to some extent even right now. But, the problem is that my circumstances are not allowing me to do so as i cannot turn away face from my responsibilities. But, that time is coming and coming soon.
James, i do not think that there is any issue with your brain yet.
I do not know whether you are aware or not, but there is leading scientist in the name of J. Craig Venter, who is exclusively working on Software of life. His perception is somewhat closer RM, though, being a scientist, he does not enter into metaphysics. Yet, i think that he may entertain and recognize your work With JSSRM, especially its software model.
James, i do not think that there is any harm for you to communicate with him. He is famous man and runs its own research organization and not short of different means and resources. Think over it.
I am putting a quote of him here to enable you to have an idea of his perception-
I don’t see how you arrive there. FC’s position would be that value is subjective, and that subjectivity builds reality by resisting other subjectivities. VO takes objectivity as a collection of subjective perspectives (RM and regular science do the opposite).
So, any value is not objectively real as that value, but it is real in every instance where it determines the action/effect of any particle or entity. So it’s real as a, what to call it - as an incentive.
I like the term pre-meaningful experience, but I’m not sure what it means. How can we experience without being aware of it? And is being aware of something different from giving meaning?
As I read it, it only asserts that there is such an affecter. You write:
What allows something to affect, to be distinct?
Why are there affecters?
This is clear enough.
I’m not sure what this means.
This is clear enough.
It’s only the first assertion that I have issues with. How you build from there seems legitimate to me. But since the first assertion is in question, it’s not said that the RM ontology covers any real ground. I believe that it does, but not that it covers everything.
VO explains what is required for there to be an affecter, a resistance, a distinction.
Did you forget that infinite homogeneity is logically impossible?
…along with the issue that worrying about anything that has no affect at all is irrational.
That is where it got the name “Rational… Metaphysics”.
…and “distinct” merely means that there is a difference in their state.
Find something that it doesn’t cover.
I haven’t seen that explanation. Where did any of those things come from?
I disagree.
RM:AO begins with pure logic, no observations at all.
I “have to” only because my mind isn’t all that perfect. A much brighter person than me could have done all that I have done thousands of years ago without ever opening their eyes and still have known that they were perfectly right. Only a clouded mind has to verify its reasoning.
I have to accept that the “information” does eventually get “lost” in the sense that it becomes so conflated and confused with other information that it is irrecoverable and thus “lost” (referred to as the “Abyss”). I agree that its affect never ends, but the source of the information can no longer be deduced beyond a certain point of mixing with other information. It “dis-integrates”.
No mind can exist without memory. Memory is an essential and primary component to any and every mind.
No memory at all = no mind at all.
In synapse nodes.
Again, that is a presumption of yours, and happens to be false.
You cannot disagree with “my definitions”. You can only choose a different concept and definition (the same is true in reverse). We can debate which definition is more appropriate, but there is no such thing as an incorrect definition as long as the definition is coherent.
There are only 3 options;
That which changes (physical; eternal disagreement)
That which never changes (conceptual; eternal agreement)
The border between 1 and 2, an empty set that both changes and doesn’t or neither changes nor doesn’t.
If it moves, changes, scratches its ass, or thinks, it is Physical because it is “changing”.
That is not to say that it isn’t eternal. But it can’t be said to be “immutable”. Immutable things do not change… at all.
I am aware of such people and there are similarities, but it would be a very long time before we actually had anything to share.
There are 3 companies;
Steel mill
Engine manufacturer
Automobile manufacturer
I am working on 1 and 3. He is working on 2.
Eventually they must all come together. But that might be a very long time from now.
I entirely agree with subjectivity building reality (which is the basis of RM’s major fundamental flaw).
That is to say that subjective values build reality. Thus values must be there first in order for reality to exist at all: values precede reality. And if they exist before, and thus without reality, their origin is unreal: values aren’t real. They may become incorporated into one’s reality later on, but any reality that is attributed to values in this way is in hindsight. Appreciating values as originating before reality, they can be seen as beyond reality.
Given the above, values have an effect on reality, yes, but without being real themselves.
That is not to say that they can be unreal and also part of one’s reality.
I hope that explains how I arrived there.
It is inspired by becoming, as opposed to “being”. Experience is dynamic, not static.
Meaning is created by only two ingredients: experience and association. Well, association is part of experience (just as everything is - shamefully a similar starting point to RM’s relationship between existence and affectance - but I take solace in the fact that I was coming up with this long before I even heard of JSS’s “Ridiculous Mess”), so that is really just one ingredient - a dynamic one.
Meaning evolves as experience influences one to adjust one’s associations between mentally divided and re-connected experience (which is what happens when one constructs one’s reality). Associations are thus refined, but from what starting point? In order for meaning to be created, one starts without it, without meaning, but with the meaningless drive to create it - this is pre-meaningful (very similar to, but one step before VO since this drive is at first without value even though it can be incorrectly called a value in hindsight). One continually experiences this process even in the present, through inspiration and understanding: concretely as the seamless progression that is experience (as opposed to the series of static abstract events, which is a theoretical breakdown that does not resemble experience in practice).
The word “real” comes from the Latin, meaning “thing”.
A thing is defined, it has boundaries, unlike the set of every “thing”, which cannot be included in its own set. It is itself beyond the set of “real”, defined things.
Becoming is the dynamic process by which concrete “everything” is divided up, through abstraction, and reconnected, through association. This experience is the continual creation of one’s reality, originating in the pre-real (which is unreal).
Thus reality is only the result of all concrete experience, once it is abstracted into things and associated back together in order to add meaning to them.
There, and I didn’t use the word “real” in the definition.
