What you did is rationally define metaphysics, and then built upon that foundation. Quality work, but not any sort of ownership of being rational and using metaphysics.
I think you offended me by, in my eyes, dismissing my words as though they’d all been said before, or even more, stolen from you.
If one says there’s energy, then one’s saying there’s existence. If one’s saying there’s no existence, one’s saying there’s no energy/potential for affect.
My argument is that since existence is defined by it’s affectance, it will always have affect.
In the physical universe, all is motion. There is no mass and no object, but the different forms of motion effect eachother.
There is no energy but instead there is vibration and movement and heat and sound, all are motion.
When we percieve its surface it has a tangible quality. It moves and feels solid.
This aspect of reality is most commonly considered to be known by humanity.
As for the silent forces which don’t move, or only move slightly, or are too far away, nobody can experience those, but we can estimate that they do exist.
My definition of the void is like the undestirbed surface of a lake. It has a quality which means it is desterbable. We experience the desterbed and desterbable reality. This is considered actual and potential. Hopefully I’ve clarified myself.
We have different definitions of void. I say a void doesn’t have affect, and can’t be affected, therefore, doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because existence is defined as the ability of affectance.
Your definition of a void seems to be that of energy (potential) which isn’t actuating to anything ‘significant’ at a given moment.
I think you guys are saying the same thing but merely with difference emphasis and different words.
I don’t know why I keep missing your posts, Joe…
I’m thinking more like ants, under their boots, but…
Well, that reference isn’t up to my standard (especially when you look at his definition for “existence”).
And I named what I created “Rational Metaphysics” for more exacting reasons.
Rationality refers to the logic that leads to a goal. My “Rational Metaphysics” is founded on Definitional Logic and the rational declaration that existence = affect (just as you have been stating). It is irrational to worry about anything that has no affect at all, thus what exists == what has affect, whether anyone wants to claim otherwise or not. If it has no affect, I don’t care about it (hence being “rational”).
Unlike Science and so very many other ontological endeavors, RM doesn’t presume axioms concerning existence. It begins merely by defining what anyone would care about and see where the logic takes it. From that I got Rational Metaphysics: From Void to Inertia, Mass, Momentum, Particles, and Gravity. My claim right now is that work is irrefutable (once you go through he math anyway) and exactly explains why gravity exists and how it works even more precisely than Science.
I apologize for such appearance. That certainly wasn’t what I meant.
Actually I had too much trouble discerning what you were trying to say, and thus underscored “rational”… as in “emm… is there some rationale to this OP?”
But from your continued posts, I can agree with just about everything you have said.
Your conscious is tapping that inner genius that most people ignore. Your mind is requesting from the source of genius. You are attending to yourself and whether what you think is coherent and rational. Very few people do that. That makes you relatively unique and is a serious potential problem for you.
Most people respond only to the superficial appearance of good or bad. They don’t think about or really care that much about being accurate and gauging, judging, accurately. They just want to get it over with, make the judgment and move on. If you can be made to appear evil, then they are satisfied with the judgment that you ARE evil (which is why it was said to avoid even the appearance of evil). To the satanic world, appearances are reality. And you are in a WAR of appearances.
So genius or not, insane or not, the world is going to respond to your appearances of guilty/innocent, threat/hope, good/bad, friend/foe. Note that in your control panel there is only the options of “friend” or “foe”, no third option. People ignore the third options so that they will contend with each other more readily.
It isn’t really an issue of being genius or insane, but what AFFECT you have that in turn inspires affect upon you. While living in a satanic world, appearing to be innocent, merely makes you a target. But appearing to be guilty, makes you the bulls eye.
