Clearly the socialists don’t value themselves as Americans, but as socialists.
Magnus; true needs, and perhaps more interestingly, true power.
What can one truly amount to, in an objective light?
Objective knowledge about oneself, knowing that objective knowledge about others is impossible.
Again quoting Nietzsche: “What matters is the quantum of power that one is, all else is cowardice.”
We may might substitute “cowardice” with “uninteresting” or “silly” or any other word denoting an irrelevancy, an absence of truth.
Globalists value themselves as globalists. In as far as Socialism is globalism, they’re both valued equally. Otherwise it’s one on top of the other, for anyone. There’s always an order of rank inside the individual. An individual is a rank order of valuings (“instincts”).
I would like to throw a thesis into this virtual space:
Is it possible that RM:AO and VO are in the same relation to each other like rationality and irrationality or like (Kant/)Hegel and Schopenhauer/Nietzsche? I don’t mean a strict opposition, but something like a rivalry in the attempt to find out the most important thing in cognition, which is tried on the one hand by means of rationality/reason/logic and which is tried on the other hand by not ignoring rationality/reason/logic, but considering it less important.
By the fact that mathematics has discovered the set of the irrational numbers, the rationality, so typical for mathematics, has not disappeared. The irrational numbers function in (function) equations, and that’s all they are supposed to do. The rationality does not suffer from it, but enriches itself thereby even.
What I am seeing so far is that AO focuses on precisely what exists and how it all plays together to form the complexity of the universe and all within (ontology = what exists). And VO focuses on a proposed social remedy involving how to think of things so as to accomplish self-confidence and power.
It is like AO is about merely what is there - good or bad - just what it is - use it for what its worth.
And then VO seems to be more personally and socially focused on - due to what is there - think about it this way so that you can release your inner suppression.
Both state the ontological issue of what is there but one in great detail analyses and reveals every detail - to be used however someone chooses while the other reveals one fact and proposes that fact to be used for a particular purpose.
So I don’t see one as rational and the other as irrational but more like one is logic and the other is advice (but I know far less about VO - so —).
VO is a logic, a form of reason, but it doesn’t fit all the way into a mathematical system. Which isn’t strange, as mathematics is a tiny sliver of the edifice of rational thought and even a tinier sliver of truth, empirical and abstract - and by no means the deepest part of any of these. Mathematics is a surface phenomenon. It is the way that truth comes to the surface by permutation in certain hard-hewn terms. It is hard, but it isn’t deep. It doesn’t touch on reality directly. I see AO as a surface-emulator, a vector game on one facet of a complex object.
To be clear, I consider all thought that is not grounded in VO to be irrational.
That is why it exists. Because I found all human thought to be founded on blind assumptions.
VO is reasoning without any assumptions whatsoever.
So to your tabbed question:
An ontology doesn’t prescribe. It simply shows what can and what can not exist.
You would have to tell me what you want and for whom as accurately as you can, then VO can show you what is possible and how.
I consider AO to be irrational because of several premises it requires.
One is that of infinitesimals; QM refutes this. There is no smooth scale of scale, there are steps, integers. Therefore even the math that would describe this particular mechanism of the universe (how influence is distributed within a perfectly self-conductive (i.e. mathematical) paradigm) is literally infinitely more complex than AO math. And that’s just one paradigm!
Another premise is the homogeneity of affectance, which is required for it to be uniformly calculable in terms of itself. This is absolutely not a given. It must be assumed.
Well, that is Quantum Mechanics. Why they called it “quantum” mechanics.
It is the main finding of these guys. Read some Bohr.
I did not say AO holds that the world is homogenous. I indicate that affectance, as a criterion, is homogenous.
Now “self-valuing” is homogenous as a logical criterion, but not as a mathematical one. Therefore the homogeneity it isn’t a presupposed quality, but merely an assertion of method on the part of the thinker.
But their “ontology” is based on measuring a lot of things then assuming an average as the “quantum”. They ignore the details and build their entire ontology based on group categories - “everything we measure has an average quantity of energy - so everything is made of quanta of energy”.
They have to know that they have just made a convenience for calculating the typical size of small things. That is not a complete picture of reality - it is a crude estimate for ease of calculation (similar to dividing all people into political groups - regardless of their individuality - it serves the planners and manipulators).
That is not in AO. AO states the opposite - that homogeneity is impossible in the real world. And that leads to the fact that any “quantum” cannot be homogeneous inside - so what is inside each quantum?
I assumed that is what you meant originally. VO doesn’t appear to get into the extremely finer details of the construct of the universe. That’s why I said it appears to be focused on how people should think of themselves so as to achieve an outcome.
And what I was questioning is what outcome could really be expected in a large population. It seems to be promoting the power grabbing anarchy that Nietzsche was infamous for (such as the corporate and political USA - and now the globalist “Godwannabes”).
That is what I had inferred from what is taught by wikipedia and such. But after I read Bohr I understood that the step-wise buildup is inferred from spectral data. Quanta on the subatomic scale interact with each other in a way that does not produce gradations of energy in the way that a smooth increase would prescribe, as it does on Newtonean scales; the bottom line is that smooth scales are a matter of averages. Accuracy shows reality to be anything but smooth; it is rather jagged.
I do believe you interpret too much humanities into the sciences.
I just said that that is not what I meant. The criterion is homogenous with itself on a level (math) that VO’s criterion is not. The calculatability of real order in terms of quantity is not a given.
You are presuming it is the same in each quantum. But by referring to it as a quantum we simply mean that it is a presence in a system.
Formally, there is nothing inside of it that isnt made explicit by its role in the system.
Whatever is in the quantum but not observed in terms of a system, is logically inscrutable, yet it may in stand forth in larger systems.
RM presumes to be able to designate that role in advance on a categorical, scale, but I say it can not be done, for the following reasons;
In mathematics thus also in RM,
1=1.
But that presumes that “1” equals “1” and nothing else. That is, a sign without content.
To me, 1>0<1’, and onward >0<1’’ and so forth, would be required to do maths with VO.
Whatever “1” is meant to designate in the universe, thus whatever holds ontological value, is more than just a number. “1” can never apply to the universe if it is truly and fully equal to another instance of “1”,
This is not merely theoretical but practical. If we apply the integers to hydrogen atoms, protons, or electrons for example, that is, units of which we know that they have the same mathematical values in terms of their mass and their charge, then it appears that we can not hold 3 atoms in the same framework as we can hold 2 atoms. With every added integer, a new system occurs. A system of 2 atoms is in turn not the same as a system of 1 atom. Only a system of 1 atom is equal to that same system, but this is fully tautological and may serve no sneaky function inside a true system. I thus reject “A”=“A” as a philosophic premise, just as I reject “tree” = “tree”. I can only concur that hydrogen atom’>(no atom)<hydrogen atom’'.
meaning: a hydrogen atom is as much more atomic mass than zero as another hydrogen is.
They are not equal to each other, and any representation of than as such is guaranteed to disregard or misapprehend their function in a system.
This means that VO can work with an indefinite amount of systems, known and unknown, without distorting logical procedure; it means that whatever occurs as certainty is fully local, based in empirical truth, what actually happens, conscious experience; it is therefore not a metaphysics. It is a method without prescriptions of any kind, other than that the subject must be able to be interpreted as existent. Strangely enough, there are laws, limits emanating from this requirement. Such as, for example, that units fitting in any system may not be infinitesimal; because infinitesimals do not amount to systems like integers do.as I described above; they do not bring about interactive paradigms, thus no increase in dimensions, thus no fractals, no “chaos”.
Chaos is the order that exists between orders.
An hermetic instance of VO logic stands amidst the chaos as a source and coordinator, a master signifier, in whose terms his surrounding may be coherently understood, but in whose terms another master-signifier may not necessarily be understood. One MS merely equals No MS to the same measure as the next MS. They do not compute with each other, therefore do not equal each other in terms that apply to either one of them.
This is, incidentally, why 1 is not a prime.
A prime must have 2 signifiers; “1” and themselves. In “1”, the second signifier is only a formal derivative of the first. So between the lines of what is instantly explicit,
1 is not a mathematical object in the same way that the primes are.
Strange atractors are consequences of properties that are not instantly explicit, but become manifest only when a system takes on a certain degree of complexity.
The increase of complexity is never so great as when 1 is added to 1; from there on the complexity sometimes slowly increases, then suddenly quadratizes, perhaps becomes infinite for a while until it is reduced into a structure next; the only consistency there is in increase of complexity with increase in units, is consecutive ‘beauties’ of signifiers. ‘beauty’ is how we apprehend a truth, a Thing, which carries a chaotically unfolding range. In mathematics, the primes are the beauties and the range is the range of primes, which is undecipherable in other terms than in primes.