AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

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 " “≠” > “=”.

My issue with philosophy of basic premises as basic elements (episto-ontology) such as WtP and AO has since 2009 been my questioning of the implicit premise that agents of change can at the same time exist and interrelate.

Both AO and WtP offer that the interrelating itself is their existing. VO appears only when one asks what exactly happens to the one who is being reacted to. So I am Newtonean in my approach rather than Relativistic - I do consider a pure order - just not a finite one, and certainly not one limited to time and space as criteria for orientation.

VO offers that only being reacted to in a certain way qualifies as existence. Namely, in the way that feeds into perpetuation of the tendency that brought about the reaction. I call this self valuing. The term is questionable, as there is no self to value besides this valuing, which is consistent in both its approach and its being approached; Consistency, “stuff”, empirical truth.

I have a simple question . . .

. . . what is the challenge?

I don’t have a lot of time but I want to make the most of it.

:-k

I suppose that by being you mean existence.
If so, then it’s not a good definition.
Something can exist without having an impact on something else.
The word “impact” denotes a specific type of relation between two different “measurements” or “observations” in time.

So you’re saying that existence has a more specific definition than the one provided by AO? If I understand correctly, you are saying that AO states that whatever has impact, no matter how insignificant, exists whereas VO states that only that which has a specific type of impact exists. Is that true?

Well I should really leave this to James, as it is his theory -
but how would you identify something that exists but has no impact whatsoever?

This is why I bring up the concept of cognition. Ontologies aren’t just about whats “out there”, but equally about our instruments for conceptualizing it.

Yes. Because “impact” is, as are all concepts, a construct of the mind, so using the term isn’t really sufficient for me - I needed to know what we are precisely referring to with “impact” or “affect” or “effect” - it is too abstract, not real enough.

So I went to investigate the requirements of “impact”.
That’s what VO is the end product of. “Self-valuing” is that which can both have and sustain impact, and continue existing as the same identifiable form, be it modified by the impact.

That all needs to happen before something can be registered as existent. Im not interested in what exists that we can’t talk about - Im interested in defining and delimiting exactly what our position as humans allows us to think without erring.

VO offers a conceptual minimum, an minimal logic-form, rather than a logically derived minimum element, like AO and WtP.
in fairness, WtP is only an unexploded logic-form, which led to my unfolding it into sv logic.

In other words it doesn’t derive the minimum from already existent concepts, it doesn’t break down something into a thesis simpler than it can practically be identified. The element it indicates is the elementary form of the object of knowledge, which is sustained by a hitherto invisible logic.

Selfvaluing logic works as a minimal, entirely unredundant form of thought with which we can define and define with true finesse.
Every-thing is elegantly explained, i.e. its past accurately reconstructed and its future behaviour accurately predicted, when it is interpreted as embodying its own instance of self-valuing logic.

/

I might identify it for the sake of the argument here as the logic following from the concept of possibility, omitting the idea of physical necessity. It follows then that physicality follows from necessity. But a lot is prior to it, as QM shows. (And why QP is, as James identified early on, utter horseshit). The possibility of existence produces a an infinitude of possible existences, which come to struggle with one another for actual existence, and may very wel exist parael and intertwined with and oblivious to each other. So Will to Power still begs the question of context. Why N had to conceptualize reality in two distinctly different forms of WtP: Master ethics vs Slave ethics; in VO, these are resolved as existent and non-existence. A slave is only a function of another manifestation of the first principle, to which a slave can’t directly pertain.

RM and WtP can be studied as spearheads of the two main schools: RM a Rationalist, WtP an Existentialist take on the same logic, which, is my claim, only VO finally unfolds in a rational formula and unites the Analytic and Continental traditions, Rationalism and Existentialism become one as do Ontology and Epistemology. This is achieved by inserting the entire human apparatus into the equation of its interpretation. Nothing is omitted, so the context is purified of inconsistencies. All beings are seen as equally enforcing their being upon one another, and the resulting reality is seen as one great web of tension - differences using each other to enforce themselves - an utter chaos as regarded in stasis, and a perfect order when seen as unfolding.

Contexts interrelate like a fractal to itself, as all is ultimately the same context; valuing that part of the word that one has a causal/affect/power bond to in terms of ones own structural integrity/consistency/self-valuing tendency. A waveform always comes back to its mean. Stock trading uses this self valuing of the value to capitalize on those that expect continuous directions.

“All things are rooted in themselves” - Dogen
Only slavish forms are rooted in “the whole”, which is only the commitment of slaves to each other to keep pretending that such a thing exists.

Assuming that was your question…

There is no “next point” other than the next point of interest or of focus or study. The universe is a continuum. And at every location along a line of the continuum, there is a potential-to-affect, PtA. That PtA “affects” by propagating (PtA is a vector) and either increasing or decreasing the other locations of PtA down the line, as they are doing similar. The only existence is the level of PtA rising and lowering at varied rates (aka “Affectance”). All else of formed of merely that.

I explained that to you can Capable years ago.

The more recent video explanation:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCbvMML95QM[/youtube]

The word “existence” refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions. It only applies to assumptions, it does not apply to facts. Facts refer to what we have experienced in the past. Assumptions refer to what we did not experience in the past but what could have happened in the past or what might happen in the future. You can say that facts also refer to existence, that wouldn’t be wrong, but it would be redundant. There is no reason to do so.

With that in mind, the question “how do we identify what exists and what does not?” is in fact the question “how do we choose what to assume?” You can form assumptions any way you want but there is a way that evolved and persisted in certain organisms because it proved to be advantageous in certain environments – those that are stable. This method works by choosing those assumptions that have the highest degree of similarity to one’s personal experience.

I would take the statistical approach. The question would be: what kind of set of statistical measurements allows us to perceive that one thing impacts another?

Sensory information can have ANY kind of structure. There is no structure it must obey. There are our expectations that the existing structure will persist through time but we have to remember that what we expect, no matter how grounded in reality, is not the same thing as what’s going to happen. In other words, the map is not the territory.

Yeah, thanks for making me re-read what I had already read. So now I will attempt to break down what you are saying without getting too far into VO.

Truly I would like to understand what you are getting at here but as I have pointed out to James before, language has become quite the chasm.

How do you propose that I begin to understand what you are saying in the piece that I have highlighted in red?

As for the piece that I have left in black - I am not sure how I am supposed to start piecing red and black together - there does not seem to be anything solid for me to work with. I am making my point because mostly, I would like to read this thread.

I guess I am going to have to read some VO if you are not willing to re-word what you are saying with the chance that I might just get “it”.

Ah, my aching back.

:evilfun:

Can anyone name something that does not have any influence or affect upon anything whatsoever and yet is believed to exist?

No one can. But I actually make the weird claim that something may be said to have an affect, and yet may not be said to exist.
Im putting it out there as weirdly as that, so as to show everyone that the logic behind ideas like fundamental elements is far less obvious than it appears when it is being phrased in terms of nouns and verbs. As a bare minimum to grasp what lies beyond the matured forms of manifestation from which finally language arises, we need terms that encompass noun and verb. In this light, encode, you should read “A self-valuing”.

Summary of Value Ontology
Value Ontology Studies
semi comical video explanation of Value Ontology

I understand all this, and I will reiterate my appreciation of it.
However, my question remains unanswered: what is it that causes one infinitesimal of PtA to have that PtA?

So I am not asking “what is existence” (I agree that for a thing to be said to exist, it must be said to have (had!) an impact) but how is affectance “stored” in infinitesimals that actually are different from one another, so as to be able to influence one another, so as to form a continuum.

It is true. Only assumptions that have an influence on our actions are considered to be “existent”. However, what we assume will happen need not have any influence on anything else even if it happened.
Your definition of existence is ontological (i.e. idealistic.) Mine is epistemological (i.e. pragmatic.)
There is a massive difference between the two.

It is impossible if you automatically, unconsciously, imagine that it has an influence on something else.
Which is something a lot of people do.

The central point is that the future is under no obligation to mimic the past.
Even if everything in our past influenced something else there is no guarantee that such a trend will continue into the future.

Magnus I am going to have to play the devils advocate here.
Are you saying facts do not exist? And that existence is not a fact?

I know these seem redundant questions to you, but philosophy is much about clearing away the possibilities of redundancies creeping into your formulations.

Yes: humans make assumptions based on which assumptions will feel (appear) beneficial to them.
This is the selfvaluing of human self-awareness. More often than not, it is the enemy to human biological self-valuing; political correctness is self valuing of awareness at the cost of selfvaluing of biology, and thus leads to Étransgenderism" i.e. castration, end of the line, death, non-being.

Yes, very astute.
There are unseen criteria that determine our choices of the criteria by which we interpret measurement.

There is no map, there is only territory. Every map is a lie, like “A”=“A” is a lie. A lie that can take us places, but never point us to the core of our existence, never reveal meaning, value, purpose, sources of strength.

That is all “meaning” is. A source of strength, and that is its only meaning.

Re-guessing the intent of your question, the short answer is “all of the other PtAs”. The formal explanation, perhaps familiar, is as follows:

I am saying that the word “exist” only applies to assumptions.
An example of an assumption would be “I imagine I was attacked by a rottweiler yesterday”.
This assumption can either be classified as existent, if what facts I possess support it, or as non-existent, if they don’t.
If I have a memory of being attacked by a rottweiler on yesterday’s day then I will classify it as existent. Otherwise, I may not.

When I assume something that very act becomes a fact.
But that does not mean there is no difference between assumptions and facts.

Assumptions are IMAGINATIONS.
Facts are MEMORIES OF WHAT WE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST.

They make assumptions based on what assumptions are best aligned with what was experienced in the past. Such assumptions can be beneficial but not in the way that assumptions are beneficial to subjectivists. Subjectivists assume what’s going to happen based on what they want to happen. Their assumptions are beneficial to them in the sense that they help them control their emotional reactions.

Map = what we expect will happen.
Territory = what will happen.

There is a distinction between the two.
Even if your expectations are extremely realistic they still are not the same as what’s going to happen.
Even if you are 100% certain that something will happen that something might not happen.
This is captured by Hume’s statement that “the future is under no obligation to mimic the past”.

James, thanks for your contribution.
My postion hasn’t been altered, except that I am more at peace personally when you and I aren’t being hostile. Its a waste.
If we both stick to purely logical issues, I think we’ll continue to get along well.

Yes.
An entities potential is certainly relative to its environment. Potential works the same as the weather, through low and high pressure.
VO allows for different criteria of pressure, potential, to be worked into the same equation.

Saying that something exists iff it affects something is reversing the logic. Things affect only iff they exist.

In contrast, VO actually explains why things exist, as well as what existence is. AO is a joke, like a sad religion with no followers.

It isn’t a question of logic, else you are trapped into presuming an axiom. In RM:AO it is an issue of declaring what shall be called existent or not. Through such a rational declaration, affecting and existing are the same thing, neither happens without the other. It’s just that the term “affecting” has commonly understood and significant meaning whereas “existing” is too often ambiguous and debated.

At best, it explains how things manage to continue to exist (and I am being lenient).

And since you know almost nothing of RM:AO, and would try to lie about it even if you did, your opinion of it is pretty worthless.