AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.
VO (Value Ontology, or more accurately, self-valuing logic), holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to be consistently responsive in consistent terms.
To the thorough mind it will become instantly clear how subtle the difference between these positions is, and to the thoroughest mind, it will become clear that this difference points to a fundamental issue with cognition.
Both theories are, Ive found I need to stipulate, disciplines for the mind. They offer us disciplines that allow us to be consistent in what we say, about both existence in general and its particular instances.
I have a fundamental issue with AO, but that issue is so elevated on the tree of logic that it is pointless to pretend as if anyone could take sides against AO on my grounds. One has to understand VO, and thus understand the reasons I had for devising it, to see where I object to the notion of affectance as a consistent standard that translates directly into reality.
VO asks: how does one quantum of affectance/power affect the next one? What is it that happens “inside” the infinitesimal that has been derived? Since to ask after something smaller than infinitesimal is illogical, it is clearly something else that is being asked here. It’s not a question that is easy to put into words - especially since we are already working with entirely new terms that themselves havent even been integrated into common language.
As I said our disagreement occurs at the very top of the ladder of logic, at the point that is so thoroughly singular that logics binary “A”=“A” structure can’t be applied anymore, as it simply claims too much, presumes too much.
It becomes reduced to something as incomprehensibly simple as " “≠” > “=”.