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,
sanjay