RM:AO seems like a modified version of thermodynamics, made to seem to apply to a subatomic environment while using ‘confessional logic’ - the logic of linearity, objectivity, all-inclusion, which is what existence has begun to defy, and which people, with some reason perhaps, want to reinstall.
a couple of similarities:
RM: Absolute homogeneity - in terms of ‘affectance’ - is impossible.
Thermodynamics: zero degrees Kelvin is possible.
The cluttering and compressing of what are still ‘particles’ in an epistemic sense (subatomic quantities of affectance) by ‘max rate of propagation’, ad the fact that 'existence is filled with ‘affectance’ much like an environment is filled with heat, motion of atoms.
RM denies Relativity. Thermodynamics describes a non-relativistic environment, involves no mathematics of gravitational curvature and is not connected to the absolute nature of the speed of light.
RM is what the enlightenment era and science was trying to be.
Yeah, they screwed up. But then again, they started from a pretty dark place.
RM merely reminds them of what it was that they were trying to achieve and how far away they got deceived by their adversaries. Of course, you have no clue as to whom “they” would be.
I always considered Fixed Cross to be a man with interesting thoughts and his posts on ILP and Humanarchy worth reading. But with his strange attacks against his newly chosen enemy he is losing all his credibility. That’s a pity, in a way, …but predictable. Swimming against the (main) stream requires a lot of strength and although you shout, not many seem to hear you. That’s not for everyone.
Without discrimination, there is nothing (the very essence of Judea). Excessive discrimination, especially spawn by ego, forms a stronger union … and a smaller one. Finding the exact right kind and amount of discrimination can be tough and holding to it, even tougher.
FC wouldn’t be the first to fall into the Judist tradition of the worship of the son of deception for sake of pride or profit.
Rational Metaphysics, RM, is Definitional Logic plus Scientific Verification plus Resolution Debating. It is a formula for honesty, nobility, and truth, thus hated by serpents of deception and their horde of manic minions.
On the other hand: Thermodynamics is A theory, often modified, redefined, and conflated concerning the flow of thermal energy. It was one of the many efforts to contrive a God formula with which to combat Christianity and usurp global authority.
Mithus, have you noticed that James offers no argument here? This is why he has become my adversary - in the end it is all claim and zero verification.
I am too much of a scientist to care for the fact that James is popular with many and that he is very capable in many ways.
If you think I lose my credibility by attacking someone who you consider beyond reproach, you certainly have never valued my writings in any way I could have intended them.
James is by far the most advanced adversary I have ever chosen - and I am not sure where this will lead. But when someone proves dishonest at crucial junctures he loses my friendship.
After years of you, and even more so MM (and hatefully so), trying to find anything at all incoherent concerning RM:AO to the point of splitting the hairs of the hairs of the hairs, far, far beyond what any scientist could ever do for sake of his theories, you “choose” to be my enemy. And for what reason? A drug enhanced egocentricity, the childish, jealous prophet-wannabe lusting to be the top dog of something, anything. So you attempt to gather a few insecure followers who can’t actually defend you or your very limited revelation at all.
Your OP is a completely incoherent, drug induced rant wherein you point out things that are almost complete opposite as being the “similarities” between two “theories” when one isn’t even a theory at all, but a method. You attempt to compare a general method for finding truth, RM, with a particular theory that I have already shot down as being truth, thermodynamics, because you have lost the ability to be coherent.
You have become embarrassing in your self-valuing-ontology - too much “self” and too little “ontology” being “valued”, as I warned you about many years ago. So as every child attempts, you invent rationalized excuses, hoping that no one will notice what your own crippled mind can no longer notice about your “self” and its “values”.
We can’t have a coherent discussion concern RM and thermodynamics. All three prerequisites are out of your scope; coherent discussion, RM, and thermodynamics. You have become the kettle calling the Sun “black”; “It’s all relative and self-valuing, isn’t it?”
I see your respect for me was feigned all along. Of course you lie - again --MM and I have had very different approaches to RM. In fact as you very well know I got MM interested in RM. He went into it much deeper than I ever tried, and in the end decided it was false. In part because you consistently refuse to address any critical questions.
As usual James is shouting some insults in the hope he will distract people from what is being discussed. An ordinary troll with an extraordinary mind.
I assume no one is deceived by this feeble bit of rhetoric. It’s been made perfectly clear that James has no intention of exposing RM to serious scrutiny. I was evidently accurate with my comparison of RM:AO to thermodynamics.
I wish you had not been so blatantly deceitful on H, James. I preferred it when I could value you as a mind, and disregard your constant bullshit as a side-effect. Now I am forced to see that the bullshit is the real substance. That hurts quite a bit as I did value you as a friend.
I have spent years trying to explain VO to James, and learning his RM from him. We could see eye to eye on much, but never on the nature of self-valuing – he never grasped VO, always sought to reduce it to RM:AO, of which I can simply not accept the premise/assumption without the exactitude allowed by VO. At that James kept on insulting my friends, calling them snakes and running them off my forum, predicting that one day they would lead me astray – which now turns out to be, away from him, away from RM.
RM: AO is an attempt to describe being in objective terms, to eliminate the element of perspective. It thus outright denies Relativity. I spent some months trying to reach his perspective into Relativity, where I was constantly defending him from attackers. MM was doing the same. All we sought was to understand James and do justice to his perspective, and we spent months on that, working hard - with him.
Look how this thug rewards effort offered in friendship.
The only deceit going on was you upon yourself - the predictable paranoia state brought about by playing with the wrong medications and not attending to real life. You now live entrapped into your own dream world of invented ego scenarios.
James -
IF I am wrong about you, then I will be happy when this is confirmed.
I have always had my questions about your approach to other concepts and natures than your own, but never about your intelligence and your definitional logic.
Your character has always seemed very pleasant to me. Your wits and advices are valued. Your Aims: I can never tell. But I never questioned their compatibility with mine.
All my friends warned me about you - you warned me about all of my friends.
Finally, I caved in favor of my friends and the truth of my life and philosophy. It may have been true that, when you finally understood what self-valuing means, you did not realize you had just figured out value ontology. But somehow this was the drop. I thought you would have been capable finally of understanding me. Instead what you did was try to include me into RM. This is as much about ownership as a child is – that is to say it isn’t ownership but something far deeper; Origin, and nature. The nature of VO is not the nature of RM: its methods are antithetical. Marking the new and still dark territory you had just stumbled upon, you pissed in its source. I now know your intentions may wittingly or unwittingly on your part well include the contamination of this source.
That would be the truth of it if they were in fact your “friends”.
I understand you far better than you understand yourself and the world you were born into.
And that is the fantasy derived from your own insecurities with the “help from your friends”. I told you the only thing that I was “claiming” and that was relatively trivial. You had become the little girl who once given millions from her dad, sues him for abuse because she thought he implied that she wasn’t perfect.
The popular theory is that such stems from your genes. But then I don’t favor presumption … including yours.
… and you obviously haven’t a clue what RM is about. I’m not certain you even know much about your VO (but granted there isn’t much to know).
James, FWIW, you may have noticed the pattern and come to a different conclusion, but nearly any conversation I’ve had with you has ended poorly in my opinion and left me with the impression that you are someone with whom it is extremely difficult to constructively evaluate opposing viewpoints. It seems to me that you have a lot of assumptions about whether your conversation partners will understand or respect you, and you seem inclined to condescend and keep your thought process and explanations to yourself. I know there are many others who have butt heads with you as well, and butting heads in itself is fine, to be expected, and is even a great thing, but it seems that there is a particular stubbornness and in my opinion nastiness on your end when it happens. I fail to see any constructive result and can imagine a hundred better ways talking to each other and reaching the light.
For my part, I have no time to continue conversations that fit this pattern. So I usually end up dropping it instead of trying to pursue some hope of having a mature and good-natured discussion with you.
These are my own observations and evaluations which are only meant as constructive feedback and not an attack. I acknowledge my own bias and point of view. In addition, I make no claim about the general merit of your ideas, mostly because I have never gotten a clear enough picture of them to make a judgment; ego and personality have too often blocked any progress there.
Fuse, I appreciate your frankness, but this issue has nothing to do with headbutting (or at least not the type so frequent around here). And your discussions with me have been very few and usually on topics that are not easy for people to be certain about or easily understand, so I tend to treat them quite differently. They really fit into a different category. And although I would prefer it to be differently, I can understand why you have that impression.
This issue is far more about the mental stability of someone over the years, their ability to not over-react and give up all they have known and gained due to something they merely suspiciously fear: “The elephant fearing the mouse and backing off of a cliff”. It is about the ability to resist hysteria and subtle terrorism such that one does not suddenly choose to abandon all he knows to become a hateful enemy based upon a hidden festering, and often totally stupid, suspicion. And reminds me of the USA’s “gold-rush fever” creating paranoid hysterics between friends and partners and more recently the shift in behavior of a 1970’s rock group that found fame and fortune without any experience concerning what to NOT do with it; turn on each other, drug addictions, contracts against morals, lust for the glory, and so on.
Look at FC’s more recent posts. Some are so incoherent you can’t even figure out what subject he was talking about much less what he was trying to say about it. They reflect his consumption with his desperate ego imaginings of great personal glory. And in the midst of his paranoid mania he moronically decided that I was attempting to steal his “value-ontology” as my own idea (which would make about as much sense as me thinking that he was trying to steal RM:AO as his idea). His OP here is obviously some incoherent effort to attack RM and/or me. He has wondered from his dead home looking for life here but left his mind behind and brought the very seed of that death with him.
I wouldn’t think that RM would deny relativity. I think it’d try and find it’s limits and it’s possibilities within some framework and that the person applying a method to their understanding that’s coherent would be able to glean information about what is relative and what isn’t. If you were walking down the street and wanted to value yourself above everything, the best way to do that would be some way that probably resulted in you knowing as much or more about the world as you do about yourself. I think I kind of loosely get the ends of which spectrum you guys are on. It’s not an impossible set of ideas to make compatible and still coherent and representative of some truth about some part of the world.