Omnilaw

I’ll try again–

What is the metaphysical law? There are many physical, concrete, particular laws, such as gravity, magnetism, etc. I’m asking for the metaphysical, abstract, universal law, the one that encompasses all the others. The omnilaw, if you will. I believe I have found it. It is the cycle of life, death and rebirth. Gravity and it’s corresponding, respective opposite, repulsion or friction, are but manifestations of the omnilaw. Gravity unites matter, repulsion or friction divides it. Comparitively and similarly, evolution strengthens lifeforms and devolution weakens them. Devolution: when bad mutations outnumber good mutations (I mean good and bad in both a value and a value free sense). Gravity and evolution could not exist without repulsion and devolution, and vice versa. Sometimes gravity and evolution prevail, sometimes their opposites prevail. When there is a balance between the forces, there is order, when one gets the upperhand, there is disorder. The wholistic, metaphysical omnilaw (the other laws are mere vassals of the omnilaw) keeps the forces order, gravity, and evolution, and the forces of chaos, repulsion, and devolution in check, so none dominates the other for long. If there was no omnilaw, one of the forces could dominate the other forever, and then there would be nothing. Now, some of you are wondering, why there needs to be devolution. Well, for one, life or subjects require non life or objects to exist. If life was too adept at surviving, non life would cease to exist and thus, both would cease to exist. Also, if one or a few species continually evolved, and many or all other species continued to devolve, the strong would destroy the weak and deprive themselves of their resources, their sustenance. Now, the trouble with man is, he thinks there’s trouble, when there’s no trouble at all. The omnilaw cannot be broken, even by man’s consciousness, conscience and free will. We cannot alter the general flow, the omnilaw maintains a perfect, aggregate balance between all things, life and death, pleasure and pain, peaks and valleys, etc. You can increase a little here, but only at the cost of decreasing a little there. The omni doesn’t need our help in maintaining itself, nor can we thwart it, increasing the total amount of knowledge, happiness, pleasure and life (the 4 shamoos) over the total amount of ignorance, sadness, pain and death, it only seems that way. In other words, same shite, different pile, man cannot make things eternally, universally better, worse, or different, just temporarily, particularly better, worse, or different. Perhaps, just perhaps, we have a little freedom to change things, but just a little. Therefore, my ethics following my metaphysics, I don’t worry about things so much, I let nature take it’s course. Everything, or most of what I do, I do for the here, the now, the further from the here and the now you go, the less of an impact you have. Why so glum? ? ?

hmmm, perhaps you people can’t be bothered with advanced metaphysics, or you can’t appreciate systems, that’s it.

Why do you assume there is one? Do you want there to be one?

Electromagnetism unites matter much more effectively, in equal parts attraction and repulsion. Friction isn’t a dividing force, it’s a manifestation of the electromagnetic force. And even if you want to play sloppy with physics, friction keeps things together.

But why play sloppy with physics? If you’re talking metaphysics, you’ve moved away from explaining the physical world as it is and can be measured. It’s a category error to try and draw it back in.

I’ll be honest, I’m not seeing much advanced in the metaphysics. You propose a rule, digress a little and then conclude without explaining why you believe it is the one all-encompassing law. What am I missing?

Yes, yes I do. There’s nothing more philosophical than one, even if your one is there is no one, it’s still a one… I love ones, ones and twos, ones and twos are why I’m here.

Then the opposite of both, or presence, is neither, or absence. The omnilaw maintains a perfect balance between the presence of electromagnetism and the absence of electromagnetism. When electromagnetism increaseth here, now, electromagnetism decreaseth there, then. This is true of all things: from big and small, to tall and short, from good and evil, to life and death. The universe gives us the illusion of change, the illusion and nothing more. The sage does nothing to increase or decrease the aggregate, he only does something to increase the… whatever the opposite of aggregate is… the temporal, the finite? By doing nothing, the sage leaves nothing undone. All kinds of being are merely temporarily transfered hither and thither, no kinds of being can be created or destroyed. The fractional temporarily changes, the totus eternally remains…

Ok… then I will equate friction with electromagnetism rather than with repulsion.

My metaphysics is a messy extention of my physics, and my ethics is a messy extention of my metaphysics.

I would think the omnilaw, is like the law of Yin and Yang, of not particular opposites but simply that there must be different things, that there must be dicvision to some degree, seperation, for if there is no single things within the everything then how can their actually realy be anything. If there is not division there would not even be existance as opposed to non-existence…

so simply I guess the omnilaw = difference.

one might say what of similarity but I would say similarity is a naspect of difference in that without different things there are no seperate things that can be similar.

perhaps the next law on the scale would be that contradictory things cancel out…in otherwords contradiction destroys itself and thus does not exist.
For example non-existence can not exist…thus we have eixstence…

this omnilaw I propose would in clude the cylce of life and death, in that each is an up and down and perhaps then again there is another up and another down, and so on endlessly…itwould seem to be the underling patter of life, like a wave, up and down, up and down, up and down… though perhaps in reality the frequency, amplitude and what not varies…

The most fundamental of all operations is that of combination and separation. All other operations can be reduced to these. Therefore, it is combination and separation that are the ones to work with.

The most abstract terms in language are subjects, objects and units. All other concepts are simply reductions. Therefore, subjects, objects and units are the ones to work with.

Subjects have elements and emotional ramifications. Objects have elements but no emotional ramifications. Units have no elements or emotional ramifications. Otherwise, they are semantically interchangeable terms.

Gravity, magnetism, etc. only apply to objects. If you want to get into omnilaw you have to deal with subjects and therefore emotions. When subjects combine they form a relation. Emotionally this is an example of happiness. Life is combination and death is separation.

Subjects that identify a relation are extrinsic. Subjects within a relation are intrinsic.

There are five different kinds of combination. The first kind simply forms a relation. The second kind increases an existing relation. The third kind is back and forth between relations, waves. The other two are actually subtypes of the second kind, they are leverage and contentment. (Much of humor is leverage.) There are no other possibilities. All examples of combination and separation fall under one of those five types.

And now, here is the clincher. The way to relate subjective combination with physical reality is thus:

1stC Extrinsic - Gravity
1stC Intrinsic - Charge
2ndC - Transmutation
Leverage - Light
Contentment - Inertia
3rdC - Heat

(the C stands for combination) If you buy into this then the universe makes sense and you have omnilaw.
If you don’t then all you have is physical reality pertaining to objects.

I agree though I amalgeamte the two words into one and that is difference, because one cannot have difference with some similarity (combination) or some oppositeness (seperation)…and then eyes might be touching it too in a different metaphoric language in saying gravity, in that it is like the force of togetherness or combination…

Yeah there’s no question my conception of omnilaw was influenced by Daoism and it’s yin/yang, and Empedocles and his love/strife. Opposites are dependent on each other for existence. To increase on is to increase the other, to decrease one is to decrease the other. There’s no way we can increase good without increasing evil, increase life without increasing death. We can only temporarily increase the good and life here, eventually, we will lose the good life. That is why civilizations rise, and fall, men live, and die. The enlightenment was based on the notion of progress, on linear time. Such notions of progress and linear time are incompatible with Taoism, Empedocles, and existence. Existence is transient, existence is finite. When we western living standards rose, the natural world declined. Eventually civilization will trade places with the natural world. Eventually the natural world will catch up with the artificial one. There is no need for environmentalism, although, this is one way harmony will be restored. Civilization is declining in a myriad of other ways: Decadence, debauchery, devolution, abortion, contraception. All good things must come to an end. Therefore, the sage does nothing, yet leaves nothing undone. He attempts nothing, he just does. He leaves the world as he found it. He adapts himself to the world, rather than adapting the world to himself. The sage is the next stage in man’s devolution. The phlegmatic sage shall replace the choleric capitalist.

No there’s more to it than that, see above.

There’s room for similarity and difference within my omnilaw: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

mmm, there’s room for existence and non existence: being + non being = becoming.

Right, positive presence and negative absence are dependent on each other, when one increaseth here, now, the other decreseth then, there. There’s no escaping it, I’m affraid. You make this thing bigger, you make that thing smaller. You create this, you destroy that. You learn about this, you forget about that. There are many important things modern man has forgotten.

Actually there are 4, I think: combination and separation, or love and strife, and presence and absence.

I think those 3 encompass just about everything… curious, where would verbs fit in?

Curious… is there anything that has emotional ramifications but no elements? ? ?

Right, I did put more emphasis on objects than subjects.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I thought of something similar to this, I think, not sure how my fundamental relations would apply to the subjective and objective worlds. Yin, Yang, Both Together, Both Separate, Yin over Yang, Yang over Yin, neither. I call those the significant 7 (actually I just made that term up right now, lol). Here’s some… others: unknown, switcheroo, hanky panky… actually I made hanky panky up, there is no hanky panky, methinks. Altogether 9… 9. Everyone sees the world through one of the 9. What’s your 9? ? ?

Now that’s abstract, Abstract, now that’s ambiguous, iambiguous.

I don’t know…When one increases the good at that time they decrease the bad, maybe at a later time the fall from the height of good results in a more relative, percieved, severity greater of bad. As the Tao te ching says, roughley; If you grasp something you face losing it…the higher you get the greater the fall. so i think putting time into the equation makes a difference, and then we can realte that frequency is relivant, thus to not get to high, and thus not rebound too low, forms a balance that is thus an overal good subsequently devoid of bad…I would think…

oh…well…I guess you bring in time here (reading as I respond…)

eh…definine finite… it could all be infinite and yet we grasp it and by definition call it finite… I would think that regardless existence is relatively infinite,sepecifaclly with regards to time and size of say the whole (not just the known universe)…and progression of time i do not think is incompatible with Taoism and rather was considered well when it was written, though perhaps taken for granted and thus not mentioned.

There is no need for environmentalism? And It is often misunderstood, i would think, the idea of no-action. Rather, I would think it is a matter of “washing and then dring” as rumi put it… One acts in form of yin then acts in form of yang, and thus it is action that is like no action(-50 + 50 = 0), yet good still comes of it, it is cleaning… The Tao Te Ching teaches us that doing too much is bad, as is doing too little. but then so too is doing too much of not-doing-too-much… or rather I would say that it is important not to become reliant or do too much of fitting into things, rather it is important to both change to the exterior and change the exterior to you, it is of balance both yin and yang…Thus where it is best or unavoidable that we must fit we should fit, but where we can change and it is just to do so we should change.

The discription of the sage is much of the nature of alluding to the manner in which the sage is perceived, due to the nature of acting balanced and not submitting to a single side the sage is seen negatively often by parts of either side, and then because the sage questions so much the sage is seen as a child.

Perhaps you think the pattern is yin…then yang? and not shifting, and most importantly eternally repeating… as things do fall so too do the rise my friend. as we shall fall so too shall there rise again civiilization, at the least somewhere. I think of life like the graph of sine or cosine, a wave going up and down, that flows backinto up after the reach of the peak. Just as we get to a mountainttop and must comedown so too do we get to a valley and come back up. I would think the problems arrise when one gets too high and fall, or two low…and perhaps you might say drown… a fall can be survived, even drowning, but fall from to high a place and one will not survive…

But yes the problem nowadays is that people are to focused on, perhaps you might call it, the yin…it depends on your perspective…they are interested in only changing the world… and this lends to repercutions, if one creates to great a control structure it becomes to complex to controll and falls (the same principle as building a wall too high or tower…), there must be change in the interior, there must be belief. People are focused on luxuries that as one gets so high (not just like a drug but high as in climbing a mountain) by them they require getting higher as returning to the base is uncomfortable, people are becoming spoiled (they are beciomoing conditioned to a situation that consumes more then is sustainable and inevitably will fall, wherein they will be too conditioned, some of them, to survive without heir luxuries, that have formed into necessities for them unecessarily) wherein it would be better that we would see that we can also form to situate with less and find contentment in things that are more beneficial in the long run… It becomse a matter of conscious control of how we associate pleasure and pain with things, wherein rather then relying on conditioning genetic and lifetime-wise already had we act to change the fasion, we condition ourselves conciously. We can choose to associate preferance with things that are valuable in the long run and needed, and dispreference for the useless and detremental, all in all perhaps holding to continual pleasure and contentment in that we recognize the value in our dispreferences as well as our preferences.

I did say “simply”. though relying on further “nameings” can lend to certain connectivity, and understandings…

I don’t know about that …as the Tao te ching says first there was naming, I think this alluds to the nature that seperation and similarity are a matter of perception, the thinker, the namer… as things change they may be in a state for some time of approach to similarity but I would think regardless of perception they tend to revolve into differentiation eventually, and ultimately it is a continual shifting of those natures,weherin which one identifies with as being actual depends on which aspect they are looking at.

I don;t see that math…rather I would say that bcoming requires ‘not yet being’, in reltaveity to some particular form or aspect. One might say that non-existence can exist but I would say that at the least it does not exist relative to things that do exist…non-existence is the same as complete absence, wherein there is also the absence of absence itself.

What is the “absence of absence itself?”

Presence… lol

Presence and absence are not operations.

As you know verbs come in two types, linking and action. Linking is a connection and action is a procedure. Procedures are relations in time.

No, emotional ramifications would require elements.
I’d like to add that “entity” also belongs in this collection. “Entity” does have elements but the emotional ramifications are not determined. An entity can be either a subject or an object.

I have only 5. I didn’t expect you to understand but I couldn’t resist replying to the topic of this thread.

Exactly…can’t really imagine it i would think It would be what true non-existence would be like or at least part of it, though in reality non-existence wouldn’t have any “being like” either…
…although one could say that such might result in or be existence…IDK For if there cannot be the absence of absence…there has to be non-absence…or existence of some type…

I had to correct that line though i said existence where i meant non-existence: “One might say that non-existence can exist but I would say that at the least it does not exist relative to things that do exist”

I though of something similar to there being 9 qualities of how one can think a situation might result, go to the 13ths post from the top (how does one link directly to a post in a topic?): viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176143
Another interesting factoid is that if you add up the digits of any number the digits of the number that results untill you get to one digit) all you ever get are numbers 1 through 9, if you do and in sequence you will se the pattern of numbers having what is as I call it “numerality” 1-9 in a repeating pattern…zero is skipped and is only composed of numbers that only have zeroes…in other words zero itself… there are neet things that can be done with numerality… but anyways I find it odd that there are also 9 in such things as this…IDK maybe i’m being weird…