The value of an entity is the difference between its congestion and that of the ambient. This difference tends to hold its quality and quantity as long as possible, though not able to successed in the long term. It is the pride of an entity.

Having said this, we must remember that this notion applies to the ambient also as it also wants to maintain its pride, thus the tussle begins and heads towards a mutually acceptable settlement, and, that is ultimate and inevitable outcome.

You are right in holding clogged ambient as particular, but let us not forget that still is merely a reformation of the ambient.

The particle cannot exist without its ambient, but, the ambient is nothing but the cluster of particles.

James and RM do not accept its particularity because both do not see particle completely detached from the ambient. Because, the affectance is still being exchanged with the ambient. Thus, the existence of the particle is not rigid but fluid. You can visualize this fluidity through the eyes of RM aand affectance going in and out from all directions.

But, still, i do not see any problem in holding a particle somewhat different from the ambient. And, i also think that even RM does not have any issue with it either, because of Un-entropic Shell. But, the fluidity of the affectance would be always there.

FC, mastery is an entirely different issue and depends on the relativity. It is always Ambient that masters the event. But if an entity is more influential than the ambient, then both of them would change their roles; entity would become ambient and ambient would become an entity.

Actually, this phenomenon use to happen everywhere in the context of ambient. Because, ambient is not a paritular particle, but made of enumberable small sets of small warzones where this tussle of dominance between an entity and its ambient is going on, at the local level, and continuously changing their respective roles.

So, when we talk about the ambient, we are talking about the calculated result of all differnt factors like plus and minus, up and down, left and right, high and low, maimum and minimum etc.

No. Nothingness cannot be an ambient in any case, becasue we have negated this posibility in the basic premises, in the first place.

Here i agree with you that- Nothing can have quantity that does not have the quality.

Actually, this is very basic question regarding the birth of existence, which confuses both science and even philosophy as well.

As i see it, RM tries to address this issue by arguing that there are two things-
1- Infinitely small points which can be affected by the potential
2- PTA ( potential to affect or affectance)

These two phenomena are both omnipotent and omnipresent as well. According to the perception of science, we can translate these two in space and time.

But, your question is still unanswered- what creates affectance or who intended affectance?
And, RM answers- It is what it is. This is to say that there is no need to go beyond this and take these as fundamental premises.

And, even science does not have any answer. On the contrary, its explanations are even more confusing.

FC, this very question cannot be answered by logic or reasoning, no matter how hard we try. We have to know the facts, in the first place, then the reasoning would manifest by default.

Because, at the end of the day, it is only What that matters, not Why. Because, Why is nothing but small sets of Whats, which are placed in right order.

Before anything else, let us address this issue of What and Why first.

As i see it, take any stream of knowledge and even any issue too, there are only two questions to be answered- What and Why. I do not see any possibility of a third question. Some may argue that How is also there as a third question, but it is placed somewhere between What and Why.

But, the million dollar question is that which comes first and more important?

Philosophy (knowledge) takes a start from a simple what and that is observation. Observation leads to curiosity. Thus, every what is inevitably followed by a why and that is reasoning. One why leads to another and the process goes on until we collect enough whys answered to explain the initial what. That is how it goes.

But, how these small whys use to be answered?

More often than not, we tend to find the reasoning of any event or object through some kind of either assumption or belief. That may be right or wrong but that is not the issue here.

The question I am asking is if any reasoning of anything is possible in real terms? I do not think so.

Actually, there is always a what behind each and every why. It is not the other way around. Why is nothing but very small sets of whats. Reasoning is nothing but a set of events or evidences at micro level. We use to combine some small observations and name it as reasoning for our convenience.

Let us examine the case of an object, say a stone.
So, the question is what is a stone?
It can be answered only through the small sets of whats. There is no need of any why in it, no matter how minute we go.

Now, let us take an event.
Think of Newton watching an apple falling from the tree.
So, the question is that why is apple falling on the earth instead of going up in the sky?
We know that there is a why behind it and we use to call it gravitation. And, that explains the event perfectly.
But, is gravity a reasoning in true sense?
How gravity happens?
It is again a small set of whats, which we use to combine with each other and call it gravitation (whether true or not).

So, I would like to argue that actually there is no whys in the world whatsoever. There are only whats. So, if we know all whats, all whys would be known automatically.

So, This what you asking for- What is there and unfortunately, philosophy cannot answer it because it a matter of observation, not reasoning.

Yes, that is of course a quality but i think that RM can answer it; remember Un-entropic shell at the periphery of the positive particle.

Agree again. This is what that drags RM in the uncomfortable zone. The problem is that RM does not take cognitive capability as an initial premise, but suggests that it tends to develop in later stages.

But, again the same question arises that if there is no cognitive capacity is there, then how does affectance manifest itself?
That is why i used term TSM that is time, space and mind (will). But, again this leads to another question- whose mind of will?

FC, i would like to tweak it a little bit.

Though, the limit of the change is very tightly set but only for the one stroke of time. Thus, given that the time is eternal, there is no ultimate limit of the change.

Yes, that i am agree with. The intent and design is amalgamated. And, that is precisely what the Affectance of RM is.

FC, i did not use the term Man as human. It was merely a metaphor to illustrate my point of subjectivity/objectivity.

FC, I know that and there is nothing wrong in it either, but, as i explained above, logic is not an ultimate solution.
Because, for logic, you have to have some premises, but, from where these would come?

Having said that, both logic and VO can work perfectly for and between middle stages. But, neither for first nor for last.

So, we have to know and get our basics right, then logic can take the baton. Ideally, the journey of the logic should be from simple to complex but it would run into trouble if we force it move reversely. In the case of from complex to simple, the logic would never be able to find the truth, because, it can never decide on its own where the trail would end as that is the jurisdiction of the observation, not logic. And, that is precisely the problem RM faces in the initial stage as it tends to take a start from stage-2 instead of 1.

Logic is like stitching as it can marry two ends. But, we tend to forget that we have to have to ends, in the first place, only then those can be stitched together.

Yes, that is true that our thinking is our perspective and we do have any other option but to rely on it.

FC, there is a serious problem in thinking about thinking and this has been carried throughout the history of western philosophy. Let me explain-

Let us imagine that we have a stick of exact one meter and have to measure different objects with it. Our observation would be perfect in all those cases where the objects would be in the multipliers of the 1 meter like 2 meter, 3 meter and so on. But what would happen if we would have to measure an object of 2 and half meter? And, what in the case of merely 2-3 centimeters?

That is the problem in thinking about thinking. We have to lower our yardstick than a thought to measure thinking. And, this is the precise point where eastern philosophy part ways from western one. It (eastern) holds that there is something that goes beyond thought and even mind as well.

But, here is one more problem. Conventional philosophy has no means to go beyond thinking as thinking is only tool it have. The empirical search and observation of this Beyond in person falls under the jurisdiction of Religions, not philosophy. Here again the value or the pride of a well groomed philosophical intellectual opposes the idea of failing of thinking, because it tends to challenge the all what their intellectuality has been able to learn and earn so far.

FC, if you look carefully, then you will see that there were no true or pure intellectual philosophers in Hinduism and Islam. They all were spiritual scholars, in the first place, who wrote philosophical texts. This is to say that they observed first then analyzed. And, this the right way to do.

You are saying the same what Hume said that- we do not see the reality in real terms but only what our thinking ability allow us to know, and he was right.

I again agree that self-reference is not a valid path for a true philosopher. But, the question is what is the other choice we have?

Agreed. But, the same issue here again. We need a third entity, other than mind and matter, to analyze both of those objectively.

FC, our perception about the consciousness may be on the same lines but i am not sure of that because we did not have much discussion about that.

But, let me tell you that it not merely my speculation. There is also a lot of personal observation imbedded in it, and of course, some assumption and borrowed knowledge also.

As far as i am able to understand so far, there are two ingredients or qualities of existence. One is changeable while the other in unchangeable. This changeable portion is TSM and the unchangeable is consciousness as it is eternal but TSM is not. Consciousness has only one quality and that is to witness the TSM, because it not a doing entity but only feeling one. TSM or Will is some sort of intrusion in the consciousness, though i am not sure of that.

Contrary to the general perception, mind does not feel, but only analyze the data conveyed to it through senses and present all its conclusions to consciousness. Consciousness falls for the most prominent thought by default at any given moment and thinks that it is happening to her.

with love,

I read about half of it. What the heck are you talking about?
Especially that affectance. What’s that?

Thank you for posting this. I hope to make some things clear about my choice of terms. It is, as all choices, a matter of both love and power.

Its value to whom/what?

Yes. It’s most solidifying self-valuing.

No. Atoms can last for billions of years.

Consider that I do not think of all objects as self-valuings. Only those that stand the test of space-time by conquering and shaping the world according to their nature.
An iceberg would have to be very expansive to be seen as a self-valuing.

A monster of energy is our departure point. What drives this monster?

Not “Just”. Everything but “nothing but”. Look very carefully at what it is. Isn’t it - special?

There are so many shapes and sizes… and yet there are only so many shapes and sizes.

Imagine the universe as a theatre. Only those with the best “act” will appear and immortalize.
Let go of physics for a moment and observe real existence. Logic departing from what you cannot choose not to know.

This anentropic shell is the self-valuing. It is the essence of the particle, it’s self-referent interference, it’s ‘music’, with which it both pleases and empowers itself.

In times of extreme poverty, this concept is related as God.

I can only suggest that you think about reversing the perspective, using grammar to your advantage. Consider that all is always measured in comparison to something. The word “self-valuing” is merely a tool - the best I could come up with to indicate the self-perpetuating standard for interactions.

It is a simple ordering by elimination.
Everything that does not self-harmonize, disappears.
What is the cause of the self-harmonizing? How is this happening? What does something need to be doing, if it is to let through only that which feeds it? It has to be shaped in terms of a formula. It has to become a “machine”, something with a continuous mechanism. This produces the shell. Or rather, it is what is seen as the shell, but reverberates within. And it is ever stimulated by ambient, and kept alive by ambient, but it is itself an essence without which there can be no resistance, and thus also no affectance. This is where i break with RM - the logic behind the concept resistance, which Nietzsche calls the will to power, what RM calls PtA.

Only the concept nothingness, as it falls away as an impossibility.
Philosophy is as much the physics of grammar as the grammar of physics, which is empiricism except if you’re Einstein.


There we agree.

But this is not the answer to the question philosophy asks!

She asks not what is, but what’s happening.
The philosopher has been the conquerer as long as men have lived among apes.


You must by now see the “value” is a very appropriate word, for a “what” which turns into a “why” by means of a “how”.
multiplication by “lucky” exchange.

Some play ‘poker’ and anticipate momentum, others play ‘chess’ and adapt to laws to become invincible.
But the situation is always an attempt at estimating/anticipating the circumstance (ambient-structure, “presence”) so as to preserve momentum.

Not any longer.

Both. But as RM observes, gravity is simply a combust of collapsed PtA, reduced to chaotic/near zero force compared to the more harmonic forms of self-harmony that affect with greater power. Self-valuing would be the highest, most abstractly perfect ‘radiation-source’ - the invisible truth (behind the door that doesn’t exist (because it’s always open)) - it requires that the Word is no longer taken in vain - we must admit to grammar, to what it is that we do, here and now. What is the central word, concept, of our language? Which term applies to indicate what relates to what and how this is ultimately a tool, and as much as it comes in handy inevitably leads to the mistake of asking ‘why?’.

Don’t ask why beyond the obvious - to attain value to feed the self-valuing, so that it can value another day.
This is why optimist always win, and why pessimists are just conservative optimists. The pessimism of strength is the endurance of a team of oxen in the application of value to existence.

Nietzsche had his reward in his choice to embrace the horse and abandon the word - a much nobler and more heartening ending than he’s given credit for.

I think that why is simply a more complicated identity of what.
“Why does it do this”? Means: “what precisely is it doing?”

I prefer my own terminology here - it goes to the essence of what the shell is doing. “Shell” is not accurate enough. The shell is a part of the whole, which is a -

the shell is the activity (affectance-function) of value-selection.

I have a similar take on this: The “inscrutable” which by all causal standards is forced to exists a priori to manifestation is not physically a priori but only conceptually.

Are you beginning to understand why I use the term “value”?
((I might also call it “the magic that happens”, but that wouldn’t do the trick. ))

Here you are departing from the known. Existence operates in patterns. Some things are possible, most things aren’t.

This is why the hindu’s, the most spiritually experienced people of all time, who crated the caste-system. The universe is inevitably an order, (otherwise it doesn’t exist) and an order is inevitably a hierarchy. All this is mediated by values, and by the society valuing itself as an entity. This has the effect that individuals are valued by the whole in terms of that whole. This is why we can not have an openly hierarchic system, we do not value the whole as greater than ourselves, unless it is a whole comprised of free individuals.

“Freedom” is only a true value for slaves. For a typical aristocrate, “dangerous play” is a more praiseworthy value. For an artist, “bondage” might be a great asset. Artists belonged to the lowest caste. For the scientist or philosopher is “truth” important. But the truth about what?

Again, I arrive at the beginning. How do we identify the entity?
That which dictates the behavior of its environment so as to become definitely part of it or definitely not part. There is very little vague about an entity, it is very particular, - both existentially and behaviorally.

I believe that philosophy arrived at the point where it no longer takes existence as-such for granted, only existence as a concept. To arrive at the as-such, the de-facto, that which actually manifests itself now, felt from some perspective, perceived by others, Newton has to be dropped and Einstein fully embraced - only the speed of light is valued equally by all.

This is term suggested by James in RM ( Rational Metaphysics).

You may have a look at the below mention thread for details-


with love,

I was hoping I could talk with you directly about this.
First of all, I don’t believe in cause and effect. They are perceptions. All we have for that sh-t is our best translation. It’s a translation. So when I see “affectance”, I think no, they miss-interpreted ideas for objectivity or realness, or ontology.

Also why is there a difference between ambiance and an entity? Isn’t that like saying we are separet from the world we live in?
(f you spell check, separet will never be spelled that way)
Again, the distinction is meant as a utility of thought, not a fact.

That’s what happens with all “facts”. They start out as a repeated sensation. We forget the sensation and all that is left is the facts. The skeletons of life.

Are you here to talk about facts? It looks like you are doing allot of guess work in the first half of your OP that i read. Is that true? What do you think about what you are writing?

Of course, if you want. But, you have to be patient with me as i do not much spare time.

I do not think so or rather i should say that is not true.

That is precisely the core issue of the discussion between FC and me.

In some cases, an entity and an ambient behave as two different things, but sometimes not. Actually, it depends on the context. We are separate from the world when we talk about an individual. But, we are part of it when an alien talks about us sitting on his planet. It is a relative issue.

No Dan. I think that you got me wrong here.

I am going beyond even what you are suggesting as i am holding even all the sensations as facts. I do not mean merely physical objects by facts or Whats. My definition of whats covers all existences, whether physical or abstract.

We were discussing about the relation between an entity and its ambient, and some pertinent issues also, which are necessary.

You are welcome to join if you wish.

Yes, there is some speculation on my part certainly. Having said that, it would be also wrong to say that there is nothing but mere guesswork.

Dan, i am not sure what you exactly mean by that!

Nevertheless, i write what i know. I also write what i can safely assume on the basis of my knowledge. And, sometimes i also write what i can think randomly, but not often.

with love,

Ok but I might straw man it. Warm me if I do.

I see reality as basically elements. Endless elements. And there are infinite ways they can possibly come together into structures and even come together to form life. But also the elements are not fully conscious or fully alive, so reality becomes redundant. Lots of stars in the universe, instead of just one star. That is universal redundancy. To the point where we can “know” something without being there to see it. But besides having that quality, there is also the never ending uniqueness of slow flakes for example. An individual being or an entity is, to me, just an aspect of reality. Since reality is like that, naturally, I consider it factual that individuals and entities exist. On a molecular level, most of our body matter will be different in a year or so. Also the mind keeps changing too. I don’t consider my old self me. It is gone forever. Entities need to be re-created, constantly. The ‘ambient’ concentrates into the individual, but later the individual dissolves back into the ambient. It’s like how yin can become yang, and yang can become yin. There is a cycle between life and death, simple and complex forms, etc. And because nature is redundant, life on earth follows similar patterns and behaviors. Always passing in and out of forms and orders.

That one statement sums the essence of it all.

RM actually goes further than that. I just haven’t had the opportunity to discuss that issue in detail. And reading this gives me the distinct impression that it is about time that I did.

What is behind the “It is what it is” involves the propagation of light. Why does light travel at any particular speed? The Science answer is, “it is what we measure it to be” (hence relativity). But that doesn’t really answer the question. It is much like saying, “God did it.”

In reality, light travels at that particular speed because of having no alternative, because of pure Logic (one of the names for God). There is nothing slowing down light other than the mathematics of the changes that are occurring. They occur at an infinite speed but have an infinite number of points to affect. That leaves the result to be a constant that we call “c0”. There is no “substance” involved other than the light itself (a changing of potential, PtA) restrained by the logic of the necessity to propagate. I just haven’t gone into the details with anyone online… yet. It involves the mathematics of infinities (“hyperreals”). Long ago, I started to go into it with Eugene, but everyone can see where those discussions go - semantics and sales rhetoric.

And I agree that the questions “why” and “what” are merely a matter of grammatical choice.

That is called “inertia” and fully explained, again, a matter of the lack of alternatives. The changing is occurring as fast as logic allows and anything proposing that it go faster simply has to wait. That “having to wait” is the “resistance to change” or “inertia”.

…“in later stages of the explanation”. RM makes no assertion as to when in time consciousness develops. RM explains the physical entities (the why’s and what’s) without the need for conscious presence within the construct. Consciousness is a different issue handled in a totally separate discussion.

Another concept that seems to be left out yet affects the perspective is that “just as a particle is anentropic, so is the ambiance in which it floats.”

An atom survives for billions if not trillions of years, but the ambiance, as an entity, is eternal. We tend to isolate and label the smaller of the two objects, the particle or atom, but such is merely a choice of the mind. The environment is also another object with a hole in it where the particle rests. Both particle and ambient field sustain their existence in the same manner, isolated only by the self-valuing process, the anentropic shell which equally belongs to both of them. In psychology it is referred to as the “ego” and sometimes “pride”. On the inside is an object of interest, the person. And on the outside is the object within which the person floats, a ship and the ocean. Both are “objects”; the ocean more eternal than the ship upon it.

And “Affectance” is the substance of both the ambient and the particle.

The absolute lack of alternatives is the fundamental cause of all of it. There is no “Gap”.

FC, it would be long post and you have to wait for a day more.

with love,

You should try to avoid such long posts, sanjay.

James, i do not go for long posts intentionally. But, my mindset is more inclined towards ought than is. So, i have to satisfy myself, in the first place, before anyone else. And, that causes problem and these long posts just happen.

But, given your age and also that i consider you wiser than me in many aspects, i do not have any problem in accepting your advise. Because, i know that you must have some valid reasons for that, but, i would like to know those, either here or via PM ( if you think so).

with love,

Thus the invinitesimal quanta of PtA represent c, James? But how then does a photon, being larger than infinitesimal, propagate at c? Is there no internal resistance at all?

Also, what is an infinitesimal quantum of PtA but a ‘term’ or ‘standard’ by which ‘nothing’ is translated into ‘something’?

Two reasons, Sanjay;

  1. very long posts are emotionally annoying for people to read through and thus they don’t; “tl;dr”.
  2. during a long post, many issues will be raised such that any response either gets even longer or leaves out a great deal as if agreed to when it really wasn’t.

One step at a time generally works best. Choosing where to begin can be a problem, but better begin at the wrong place than get ignored entirely or get the impression that much of what you said was accepted when it actually wasn’t.

Well, first forget “quanta”. There is nothing in RM:AO involving quanta until a particle is formed/ing.

The PtA is a measure (not an entity). The changing of that level, the measure, is the actual physical existence. And that occurs at infinite speeds in infinitesimal degrees and distances.

It is easiest to discuss by over simplifying the real picture and hoping that it doesn’t convey too much of a cartoon type of understanding.

If we begin the understanding from the point where we accept that there are an infinite number of points in space, each with a potential to have affect upon its neighbor, we can see that the changing, “affectance”, of the PtA occurs much like the surface of the ocean with very many almost infinitely small wavelets splashing and scurrying about.

Each of the ultra tiny wavelets propagate in a truly straight line and thus run across others coming from different directions. At this simple stage, nothing is slowed from its infinite speed except by the pure logic of what it takes for anything to propagate. Even with no interference at all, allowing infinite speed of affect, a wave of affect will still not be able to propagate at an infinite speed. I can go into the details concerning that if you need.

The end result is that what is called “light” (actually in this case, much smaller than any photon of light) better called “radiant energy”, propagates at a specific speed even though there is absolutely nothing impeding it. Thus there is the appearance of “resistance to travel” even when there is absolutely nothing to provide such resistance. It turns out that it is simply logically impossible for any affect to ever travel faster than a particular speed. It is a matter of Logic, not of resistive substance.

And then from there, the logic gets involved in the interference between the small wavelets as they try to affect the same point in space at the same time. The same logic that prevented the lil bugger from traveling at infinite speed also prevents multiple wavelets from affecting a single point faster than a specific speed. Due to that limit (being “infinite”), the wavelets slow even more than they were before. And that is where the thing we typically call “particle inertia” begins.

The point is that there is no quantizing at such extremely small levels and that there is no substance other than the PtA changing at a rate as fast as logically possible. All of physical reality and all substances are born from that concern or “pre-substance”.

Logic is the immutable impediment that causes all physical substance to become inertial.
“Nothing is possible until something is impossible.”
Logic makes certain things impossible and from that, the universe is formed.

Value for itself, in the context of the ambient.

I disagree as this statement does not represent the entire picture clearly.

Though it true that an atom can last for billions years, but only in favourable circumstances, not in hostile ones. Actually, it survives only in that ambient where it can overrule its surroundings. On the other hand, it cannot survive a where ambient has dominance over it. An atom cannot hold itself even for a moment in conditions like supernova and black holes.

Thus, it is not that an atom is surviving in the capacity of an entity, but of an ambient. In other words, it is only ambient that survives, not entities.

Disagree again. All objects are self-valuing, more or less. And also, all identical objects have the same amount of self-value. It is their ambient that decides whether they would survive or not. But, valuing or keeping the self intact is the very nature of an entity, regardless of the fact whether it succeeds or not.

An iceberg may survive thousands of years in Antarctica, but the same iceberg would not survive even for some minutes in the desert of Sahara. Why? The iceberg is still the same but melts in warm condition. Having said that, it does not mean that it does not try to value itself in Sahara, but merely failed. Thus, failing and passing depends on circumstances.

Consciousness, via TSM. Though, once TSM is manifested, consciousness cannot control it and TSM follows its own course.

At the ultimate level, consciousness is the only ambient and TSM is the only Entity. Thus, sooner or later, TSM would have to surrender to the consciousness. That is the natural course and also the state of pure Un-entropy. This event is called Annihilation in religions.

But, due to some unavoidable reasons, entropy tends to take place again and thus, existence (TSM) manifests itself.


No FC. It is not about the language but the perception. And, i am very much against using complicated and highly intellectual but ambiguous language, which has been the trademark of the philosophy, since its inception. Narration should be simple, straight forward and clear too as philosophy is not meant for displaying linguistic skills.

I wish that i had computer skills of James to illustrate my point regarding the interchangeability of an entity and its ambient but i would try in a way i can-

Scenario 1 - Let us think of only an atom here, which is covered by its un-entropic shell as its periphery. It is merely an object now, neither entity nor ambient.

Scenario 2 - Now, Let us take the consideration of some affectance, or a very thin layer of it around the periphery of an atom. We may call this layer as layer-1. Now, let us again judge the situation. It is clear that in this scenario, layer-1 of affectance cannot be described as an ambient. Here, an atom would behave like an ambient and layer-1 as an entity.

Scenario 3 - Now, we can add one more layer of affectance around layer-1 and may call it layer-2. The result would still be the same here.

If we continue in the same way, then things would change after a certain point.

Scenario 100000000000 - Now, the things and respective roles of the affectance and an atom has been changed completely. Because of its bigger and dominant size, affectance is in the position to cause the change in the atom. So, from here on, affectance is an ambient and an atom is an entity.

This is to say that everything depends on the context and it is a relative issue.


Though, i agree with it in principle but i would like to put it this way-
Everything that is unable to harmonize completely according to the circumstances, disappears, whether it makes an effort or not.

I can very well understand what you are saying. This Being machine is telling you that it has been developed something extraordinary within itself that is causing some sort of Behaviourism, which were not there earlier.

It is a bit complicated issue and confusing intellectuals since long. Here, we have four issues to address; being machine, difference between living and non-living entities, N and lastly RM.

Being machine means being repetitive. And, for repetition, there must be some laws. And, for laws, there must be some cognitive entity to formulate those. It is a straight forward logic but we tend to confuse it because we try to bend the logic to suit our perception.

In the context of RM, there is James, who is playing the role of cognitive entity. Secondly, he has done some computer programming and those are laws, which are implemented by Jack. These laws are Affectance itself, because, in his software, he has to take the premise of one affecting its neighbour for granted, in one way or other. And thirdly, this affectance starts repeating again and again, continuously and eternally, and becomes a machine.

This is the cornerstone of Affectance and RM as well and RM cannot move an inch without this. Though, i never talked about this with him and neither i am saying that he has done something wrong by taking Affectance as a premise. Because, as we agreed earlier, total nothingness is impossible and we have to start from somewhere. But again, the starting point cannot be known by pure logic, but with observation only.

In the context of the existence, there is an eternal consciousness, which plays the part of cognitive entity and creates An Eternal will, because, if the consciousness is eternal, then its will would have to eternal also. This will or intent causes things to happen, because, being a will, it has to will all the time, and thus, cannot remain the same forever, but tends to add something to its tally always. And, this is precisely what RM calls affectance and i call TSM. But, we have to remember here that this will is not stable and unchangeable like consciousness, but changeable. If that was not the case, then there would be no existence as things would have been remained the same eternally. In other words, there would be no time.

But, there is one more subtle issue here, which RM does not take into account and that is the difference between Living and Non-living entities. But again, it is only my assumption as James may have something such in his sleeve, which i am unaware of.

In the initial stage, there was only pure consciousness but imbedded with the possibility of will. It remained eternally as it was, because there was no time there. But, that possibility actualized and some sort of metaphysical Big-Bang happened. This is the precise moment when religions say and the God said or willed- Let there be light.

And, TSM or Will or Affectance came into existence. But, this explosion also spread that big clump of consciousness into enumerable particles of different sizes, which also scattered in the Ambient. So, we have two types of entities in the ambient; Affectance and tiny dots of consciousness. When only affetance concentrates, it creates Non-live matter. But, when Affectance concentrates around dots of consciousness, it creates Live matter or life.

There is also a subtle difference between the behaviour of these two. Non-live matter cannot alter the rules of affectance because it does not have consciousness, which is the originator of the will. That is why it behaves the same always.

But, this is not applicable in the case of Live matter. As it has its own source of will (consciousness), hence can alter its affectance. And, that is the precise reason why human’s mind can change that much from its peers in a lifetime.

As far as N is concerned, i am more than sure that he got it all wrong when he says- will to power.
Actually, it is other way around as Schopenhauer put it- Power to will.

FC, affectance has nothing to do with will to power, but merely caused by Power to will. And, even self valuing of Non-live entities is not truly support of the term of self-value. An atom falling in black hole does not try to alter its course in order to survive, because of the lacking of cognitive capacity. But a Live entity at least attempts that, whether succeeds or not.

It is the ideal definition of the philosophy. But, from where the Empiricism would come? It cannot be done by merely thinking and has be confirmed physically.

But FC, What is happening is nothing but enumerable sets of plain whats.


Exactly. The core ingredient is what, neither how nor why.

Yes, it is mysterious but not because of the reason that it is so, but only because we are incapable to comprehend that concept or form of the existence of the consciousness. It is unexplainable because it does not have any counterpart in the universe. It is just a form of matter like any other, but it is Live, not dead. Furthermore, it can be confirmed by observation, though only in person but requires a herculean effort.

Yes, it has all a priori values hidden in it as a possibility, simply because it has power to will, and that makes the manifestation of anything possible. The whole of the cosmos is nothing but the actualization of the will of the consciousness.

Of course, it is a magic at one stage. And, that is why i am insisting upon What than Why. Magic cannot explained by logic. Each and every ontology has to take some basic premises for granted and those are also the magic. Affectance of RM is also a magic.

The whole of scientists and philosophers may disagree with me but this magic happens at one stage. But, still, it is not the magic. It is merely what it is. And, no logic or ontology can ever reach to this conclusion. Because, it is pure and ultimate What, so one has to witness it. There is no other way of knowing or confirming it.

That is true but only within a strict time-frame. The reason of the boundlessness of the change is that affectance is nothing but will. And, will knows no limit, thus, affectance has no limit too. It can carry on putting layers on layers; eternally. It is only time that restricts the change and also allows the change too. Time let events to happen but also ensures that events must take their own time to occur, otherwise, there would be no existence.

I agree that existence is in order and hierarchy too. The cast system postulated by Manu is based on the concept that one should get and do what he deserves. Initially, it was based on the capability of an individual. But, it intruded later and people started claiming their status in the society by their birth. Though, it worked even then and long enough too. But, it had some cons also as it caused exploitation and injustice to backward classes and still causing is to some extent.

Furthermore, it is also true that Hindus were and even are most spiritually experienced people of all time, but this does not mean that they were and are most successful people of all times in all aspects of life. If they were the greatest, then why Mugals and English were able to enslave them?

FC, it was cast system that caused this almost single headedly, though there were some other reasons also.

But, remember that this particularity applies more in the case of Live entities than Non-Live entities. Same Non-live entities tends to behave almost exactly the same (being machine).

FC, there can be no Einstein possible without a Newton.

With love,

Never mind.

There are some basic elements for sure, but those are not endless. Actulally, the actualization of basic elements can be in endless ways as we use to see around us.


This is what i discussed in my last post to FC.

Dan, some elements are live while some are semi-live. And, there is no vagueness in the universe. The fact of the matter is that its scale is so huge that we fail to comprehend it completely and objectively. And, when we see a small portion of it from our localized POV, it looks redundant.


Yes, that is true. And, that is precisely what RM suggests; affectance going in and out continuously, some staying while some leaving.


No. this statement looks a bit oxymoron.
Each and everything must be in the order to get any fruitful results and existence is surely the one. Randomness can never cause anything.

Dan, i would like you read my last reply to FC.

with love,


with love,

That is what I refer to as “Inclusive Self Harmony” - harmony within and with the ambient = “Anentropic”.
…and btw “un-entropic” is not appropriate in English because it implies that the shell itself is the object referenced as being non-entropic whereas “anentropic shell” refers to the shell of the non-entropic object - the shell of the anentropic particle, not the un-entropic shell of the particle.

I have to disagree with that statement.

If you were to draw a picture of a tree with every leaf detailed, you could compare that picture with four trees in your yard. One tree has a general shape that is very different than your drawing. The next tree has the same general shape as the drawing, but the branches are in different places. The next tree has the same general shape and all of the branches are in the exact same place as the drawing, but the leaves are of a different shape. The last tree has the same general shape, the same branches in the same places, the same shape of leaves, and even the exact same number of leaves in the exact same placement as the drawing.

Now which tree is the drawing of? Whether you intended it to be or not, it is an exact picture of the last tree. When you drew the picture, you might have been assuming many things, but in the end, there can be no question that a drawing with so very many exact details that match the last tree is actually, intended, assumed, or not, a drawing or picture of that last tree.

RM:AO is like that. It is a mental picture of concepts each defined to be exactly as I chose, an ontology. I did not assume the picture. I declared or defined the picture. But in the end, that picture exactly matched subatomic physics in so very many details that there can be no question, no “assumptions” that the mental picture, the “ontology”/“understanding”, is one of actual subatomic physics.

In contemporary Science, when a picture is very much like a tree, they proclaim that the picture is of that tree even though the details don’t 100% match. Their claim is that they will fill in more details later until it does exactly match. They can do that, but eventually their picture and RM:AO either look exactly alike, or they have drawn a picture of something else other than subatomic physics. Their picture must match mine because mine matches the universe in far too many ways. They leave out many details and claim they have the best picture. I don’t leave out those details and mine already matches the universe they are trying to draw. If theirs is to match the universe then it must match my picture, RM:AO.

Currently those who govern your world, whoever you might imagine them to be, are actually using the principles of RM:AO. No governance can rise without them. People just get sloppy about it. They rush into trying to know the mind of God through mathematics and even worse, attempt to dictate it.

People are free to name and shape the terms in mathematics, but no one can dictate mathematics and certainly not logic. It is what it is or “I am that I am”. My advice is that they should be trying to understand it better before trying to guide it to their liking.

You can’t count something unless you have something to count.

Quality comes before quantity.


Yes, in more simple terms, firstly keep your house in order, then try to adjust with your circumstances/surroundings also. And, if you fail to implement either or both of these, then get ready to face the adverse consequences.

That play of language does not matter because both of us and even FC knows what are we talking about, hence the job of the language is done, which is merely communication. Language is not a goal but merely a mean to attain the goal of communication.

Yes James, i know that.

James, i agree with each and every word of that, but that is not the issue where we differ as RM is far more precise and logical than scientific explanation like QM. Though, i do not think that QM even fits in the defintion of science.

Now, here comes the disagreement.

James, with all due respect, i have to say that you got it slightly wrong.

First of all, let me make it clear that i do not have any differences with your JSSRM or RM, but you in person, who is implementing it.

The first question is what is RM? As i see it, it is an logical formulation or an ontology of logic, which can be applied anywhere. In a sense, it is very similar to mathematical formulas like addition or subtraction, which can be applied to any numbers. So, we can say that it is an ontology of existence.

Now, you are saying that you defined or declared the outlines of a picture and then filled up finer detailed later. And, when you compared your defined picture with actual picture, then both are the same. Thus, it entails that your initial definitions are true. Right!

James, you are right in your claim from your POV. But, the problem is that the final picture or reality may be beyond in both aspects of finer details and ultimate outcome and you may not be aware of that. But, RM exhausts before that because you are not feeding it properly.

James, logic is just like a blind horse so it is up to the rider to guide and bridle it on the right way because the horse does not know the destination. Logic is not the aim but merely a mean to get that. Furthermore, there must be a situation in the first place, where logic can be applied.

We all know that 1+1= 2 and you are saying that since you know that the ultimate result is 2, thus it implies that your assumption that there was only 1+1 at the beginning. Here is the mistake. The ultimate result is 3 not 2, but again, it is not fault of + sign, because it has done its job perfectly. The problem is in taking 1+1 as an initial premise.

That is what i am trying to say. Logic is unable to realise both of starting point and final destination. These can be known only by observation. Logic is fine for middle stages.

James, due to some personal reasons (and you know that), i am aware of some facts or observations, but RM does not follow that route. i know that the ontology of the existence has to run from top to bottom, otherwise it would never be able to explain the concept properly. For any ontology, it is essential to move from simple creations to complex ones. And, i know that humans are the most complex entities, thus have to be at the end of the chain, not in between. There are some other facts also, which i feel that RM would not able to tap.

James, whether all members would be agree with me or not, i know that you have done a outstanding job in developing RM, and i respect and appriciate that too. But, you are still not able to run in properly, though only in extreme conditions, otherwise it works fine normally.

It is not the criticism of methodology or RM but of its basic premises or your declared definitions.

Having said this, i have to admit that i am presuming on the behalf of RM and you also and i may be wrong. But, i cannot deny my observations whether they fit in any logic or not.

At the end of the day, the onus is on the logic to satisfy the evidence. Evidence is what it is and it does not require any reasoning to survive.

with love,