No.
This is why I was interested to see if FC was deterred by the logical conclusion of such a position - that value isn’t real.
Precisely.
RM is clearly a culmination of things that JSS considers to be most valuable. Yet he still tries to irrationally proclaim that RM precedes such an origin (that must necessarily be its origin).
This is the same sloppiness upon which scientists attempt to found their field. Not that RM is anything other than an attempt to adjust science through re-definition.
My philosophy originates more fundamentally than both VO and RM, in pre-meaningful experience. Value is merely one aspect of this starting point.
But James, where did i refute this?
One has to know all the whats in order to complete the sequence.
I am not saying that observation does not assume. Of course, it does. That is why logic and reasoning is required to check it by developing an ontology and see where it leads. But, nothing can be initiated without initial observation.
You have been developed JSSRM by now, but, even this could not be done without some observations by you, which you would have taken into accont some years back. And, even now, you still have to confirm physically JSSRM by running it on computer. I do not think that anyone can escape this route. One cannot reason from nothing as there must be something either to agree or to refute.
I agree with all this.
Again, i agree with this, except that the image stored in time and space ever dissipates.
That is the difference between our perceptions.
Dissipation is a relative issue and that depends on the state of the observer, not the information itself. Information of the events tends to travel through space-time by the speed of light and crosses the observer, and he notices that for a very short span of moment, but that information never dies, merely moves on. Hypothetically, if an observer would also be able to travel with the speed of light, then that information would never be able to cross him.
This actually happens as that eternal consciousness within us acts as an beyond time independent observer, which records and stores each and every tiny and continuous flow of information within it. That is what we call memory. It is some sort of eternal video recording and files stored within can be replayed anytime in the future. Mind has nothing to do with the memory as it is only the mean to stimulate the consciousness.
If that is not the case, then how can we ever remember any event, because, that event has been passed through us years ago? And, where are all those files of memory stored in the brain?
One cannot replay the event if there is no backup recording. And, no backup recording is ever possible for any such entity, who cannot be complete independently observe events from the space-time.
I do not disagree with this as have been already accepted that this is not a perfect method as it relies on trial and error.
James, the point is that affectance cannot ever manifest cognitive capacity, because, it merely acts, acts and acts, nothing else. It does not feel or think about its acts and consequences.
We also have difference about this concept of Conceptual realm. I do not agree with your difenition of it as holding it immutable. It is very much changeable and Live as other realm and very much affected my the same affectance, which governs our realm.
[u]This is to say that its residing entities are not merely concepts but very much alive like us. And, that realm exists in a different space-time zone. But, both realms affects and got affected by each other as there is no isolation.
The only thing that is truly immutable, unchangeable or eternal exists, that is consciousness[/u].
I know what you are referring to.
James, believe me or not, i can do it to some extent even right now. But, the problem is that my circumstances are not allowing me to do so as i cannot turn away face from my responsibilities. But, that time is coming and coming soon.
James, i do not think that there is any issue with your brain yet.
I do not know whether you are aware or not, but there is leading scientist in the name of J. Craig Venter, who is exclusively working on Software of life. His perception is somewhat closer RM, though, being a scientist, he does not enter into metaphysics. Yet, i think that he may entertain and recognize your work With JSSRM, especially its software model.
James, i do not think that there is any harm for you to communicate with him. He is famous man and runs its own research organization and not short of different means and resources. Think over it.
I am putting a quote of him here to enable you to have an idea of his perception-
I don’t see how you arrive there. FC’s position would be that value is subjective, and that subjectivity builds reality by resisting other subjectivities. VO takes objectivity as a collection of subjective perspectives (RM and regular science do the opposite).
So, any value is not objectively real as that value, but it is real in every instance where it determines the action/effect of any particle or entity. So it’s real as a, what to call it - as an incentive.
I like the term pre-meaningful experience, but I’m not sure what it means. How can we experience without being aware of it? And is being aware of something different from giving meaning?
As I read it, it only asserts that there is such an affecter. You write:
What allows something to affect, to be distinct?
Why are there affecters?
This is clear enough.
I’m not sure what this means.
This is clear enough.
It’s only the first assertion that I have issues with. How you build from there seems legitimate to me. But since the first assertion is in question, it’s not said that the RM ontology covers any real ground. I believe that it does, but not that it covers everything.
VO explains what is required for there to be an affecter, a resistance, a distinction.
Did you forget that infinite homogeneity is logically impossible?
…along with the issue that worrying about anything that has no affect at all is irrational.
That is where it got the name “Rational… Metaphysics”.
…and “distinct” merely means that there is a difference in their state.
Find something that it doesn’t cover.
I haven’t seen that explanation. Where did any of those things come from?
I disagree.
RM:AO begins with pure logic, no observations at all.
I “have to” only because my mind isn’t all that perfect. A much brighter person than me could have done all that I have done thousands of years ago without ever opening their eyes and still have known that they were perfectly right. Only a clouded mind has to verify its reasoning.
I have to accept that the “information” does eventually get “lost” in the sense that it becomes so conflated and confused with other information that it is irrecoverable and thus “lost” (referred to as the “Abyss”). I agree that its affect never ends, but the source of the information can no longer be deduced beyond a certain point of mixing with other information. It “dis-integrates”.
No mind can exist without memory. Memory is an essential and primary component to any and every mind.
No memory at all = no mind at all.
In synapse nodes.
Again, that is a presumption of yours, and happens to be false.
You cannot disagree with “my definitions”. You can only choose a different concept and definition (the same is true in reverse). We can debate which definition is more appropriate, but there is no such thing as an incorrect definition as long as the definition is coherent.
There are only 3 options;
That which changes (physical; eternal disagreement)
That which never changes (conceptual; eternal agreement)
The border between 1 and 2, an empty set that both changes and doesn’t or neither changes nor doesn’t.
If it moves, changes, scratches its ass, or thinks, it is Physical because it is “changing”.
That is not to say that it isn’t eternal. But it can’t be said to be “immutable”. Immutable things do not change… at all.
I am aware of such people and there are similarities, but it would be a very long time before we actually had anything to share.
There are 3 companies;
Steel mill
Engine manufacturer
Automobile manufacturer
I am working on 1 and 3. He is working on 2.
Eventually they must all come together. But that might be a very long time from now.
I entirely agree with subjectivity building reality (which is the basis of RM’s major fundamental flaw).
That is to say that subjective values build reality. Thus values must be there first in order for reality to exist at all: values precede reality. And if they exist before, and thus without reality, their origin is unreal: values aren’t real. They may become incorporated into one’s reality later on, but any reality that is attributed to values in this way is in hindsight. Appreciating values as originating before reality, they can be seen as beyond reality.
Given the above, values have an effect on reality, yes, but without being real themselves.
That is not to say that they can be unreal and also part of one’s reality.
I hope that explains how I arrived there.
It is inspired by becoming, as opposed to “being”. Experience is dynamic, not static.
Meaning is created by only two ingredients: experience and association. Well, association is part of experience (just as everything is - shamefully a similar starting point to RM’s relationship between existence and affectance - but I take solace in the fact that I was coming up with this long before I even heard of JSS’s “Ridiculous Mess”), so that is really just one ingredient - a dynamic one.
Meaning evolves as experience influences one to adjust one’s associations between mentally divided and re-connected experience (which is what happens when one constructs one’s reality). Associations are thus refined, but from what starting point? In order for meaning to be created, one starts without it, without meaning, but with the meaningless drive to create it - this is pre-meaningful (very similar to, but one step before VO since this drive is at first without value even though it can be incorrectly called a value in hindsight). One continually experiences this process even in the present, through inspiration and understanding: concretely as the seamless progression that is experience (as opposed to the series of static abstract events, which is a theoretical breakdown that does not resemble experience in practice).
The word “real” comes from the Latin, meaning “thing”.
A thing is defined, it has boundaries, unlike the set of every “thing”, which cannot be included in its own set. It is itself beyond the set of “real”, defined things.
Becoming is the dynamic process by which concrete “everything” is divided up, through abstraction, and reconnected, through association. This experience is the continual creation of one’s reality, originating in the pre-real (which is unreal).
Thus reality is only the result of all concrete experience, once it is abstracted into things and associated back together in order to add meaning to them.
There, and I didn’t use the word “real” in the definition.
Your assumption is correct, though I never said “your reality” and “my reality” would have nothing in common.
This is why language and any communication at all is possible.
But let’s not kid ourselves that everyone completely agrees with everyone else - or can, for this very reason.
In terms of communication (which has the same derived root as common), common ground is enough.
Abstraction would be the essential ability here in order to abstract common themes. But even the most abstract languages, created in order to maximise potential for common ground, such as math, are ultimately susceptible to individual interpretation and incorporation into “your” reality or “mine”. Consensus does not amount to objectivity.
In order to proclaim this requires no objective truth. Just because it is agreeable to those who have enough in common with me, I am ultimately a subject and not an object. This is my reality, full of abstraction in order to maximise consensus with other. And whilst others may proclaim objective truth in order to attempt even wider and more certain appeal, they too say so just as much as a subject as I. Agreeable subjective truth =/= objective truth.
They must, obviously.
It is not only the different viewpoint that gives a different experience “of the same thing” (so is it the same thing at all?), but obviously the fact that they are different people in many other ways as well, not least relative to other environmental factors other than and including the “thing/event” being focused on.
Everyone’s perception is “skewed” relative to everyone else’s… measurable in terms of different chemical constitutions, spatial and temporal circumstances etc. There is no “correct” set of sensory faculties and abilities to have, “correct” DNA, “correct” place to be, etc. because there is no necessarily universal goal. All lifeforms do not even have to survive, reproduce, exert its power etc. Often deviations from optimising these supposed biological imperatives turn out to benefit even those who are out there to survive, reproduce, exert power etc. It actually benefits lifeforms to be experientially distinct from one another, and to vary.
If their perception were not skewed - that is what would be an issue. We would all be the same and may as well be counted as the same lifeform, much more vulnerable to change and variation in our environment - a sure way to get yourself extinct.
No. I left that out, because I wanted you to bring it back to that point.
It’s the most crucial point, and it keeps referring me back to VO, or the post I posted in the Tower at BTL.
What is the logical proof that absolute homogeneity is impossible, besides that it can not be derived from the current state?
This comes down to your suggestion that “affectance” is ultimately one set, wherein all affectance is interconnected. Thus that no separate realms can exist “alongside” each other, never able to affect each other.
Yes but how are they not merely one blob or void? Why are they different states? I am talking about the infinitesimals of PtA as well as of particles - the particles bit you covered well enough (for me, for now).
I’m afraid to go there, as I’ll be ridiculed. But I’m saying it anyway - telepathy, to name one thing. I assume you don’t believe in it, and I assume RM does not explain it. So that’s a bit of a dead end - but VO allows for it very simply by putting values (i.e. “the stuff of relations”) to be logically prior to matter (matter can not exist without the stuff of relations) - so values do not have to travel through the medium of matter. Not saying that they don’t, just saying that VO allows for the relation to exist without having the density of matter.
It does not say where it comes from - I did not claim that. It says what is required.
What is required is a resistance, however minute - a ‘delay of change’, thus a “something”, a consistency of context.
VO explains how a consistency would have to operate. It has to ‘refer to itself in its interactions with its ambient’.
Or at least prior to all other reality.
I would choose that stance.
I think so. Especially if you interpret reality as deriving from “res”.
But in that case, the first “res” could also be said to be the value.
In any case, VO requires for something to exist prior to values - the valuer.
And this “thing” appears very hard if not impossible to reduce even further.
It seems to me that reality can not be pushed back any deeper than the valuing subject, of whom the values are a function.
I agree that this subject seems to stand outside of reality in a sense - the principle of perspective itself seems to be transcendent to the reality that any perspective engages.
I’m pretty sure this is what all those millions of people’s experience with “God” is about - stepping back from the “res” and identifying with that through which the thing-ness is given.
Hmm… so your idea is similar to RM - but you do not value RM at all… it’s probably best if I don’t probe.
In any case - you bring up the concept Meaning. I don’t think we arrived there yet - as meaning requires consciousness.
Does your philosophy pertain only to humans, or also to atoms?
What is the equivalent of experience for an atom?
VO holds that every interaction is dictated by the “self-valuing” of the entity - i.e. the standard into which all ambient must be translated in order to affect the entity at all.
This is why according to VO, not everything has to affect everything. There can, theoretically, be trillions of parallel universes, or “affectance-webs”, existing without affecting each other, or only very selectively affecting each other.
This is all the result of questioning that the concept “will to power” (which for our intent and purpose here can be equated to PtA) refers to a homogenous category. I doubt that all existence can be reduced to one interconnected set.
The definitional requirement is that in order for something to be said to exist, it MUST have affect. But that leaves two categories; non-changing concepts that affect each other and the physical changing that we call “the universe”. Those are two realms. They have no affect upon each other, but everything within each affects everything else within its own realm… through definition of concept or through time.
The easy simple minded answer is simply the idea of infinite similarity being something that could never be reached. But there is a much more in depth explanation.
Now this part gets to the really deep, seriously deep, area that no noted philosopher throughout history has gone. If you can carefully grasp this part, you will truly be, in only this one regard, above all famous philosophers; Moses, Aristotle, Buddha, Einstein, Schrodinger, the entire gathering. That is not to say that the other areas they speak of are incorrect, merely that without this one concern, the rest turns into confused noise rather quickly, but never entirely wrong, just confusing.
So first let’s make sure you have one concept clear; “Potential is merely a Situation”.
When I say that every point has a potential, the immediate impression is that the point contains something that I am calling “potential”. And even though it can be thought of that way, that isn’t really what is meant.
A glass sitting at the edge of a table has the potential to fall. But it doesn’t contain anything called a “potential”. Its potential is due merely to its situation, being at that edge and within a gravity field. So it is important to get it straight in your mind that a potential isn’t a “thing”. It is given a measure, called “PtA”, but that is a measure of its relative situation to other similar points. And that is all it is. No two points have the exact same situation and thus cannot have the exact same potential. Let that thought soak in; “Potential is not a thing, but a measure of a situation”. The same is true in physics concerning the electric potential. Electric potential is not a substance at all. It is a situation relative to a surrounding.
So the question becomes, “what is the situation such that no two points can be infinitely identical?” And the first most obvious answer is that by definition no two points are in the same location and thus cannot immediately affect the same surrounding points. Each point has its own surrounding. Individual people are in that same boat. No two people are identical, not merely because of their DNA or experiences, but simply because they are in a different location with a different environment. In political science (RM’s version) such a distributed situation is critical to understand. And that is why a single set of rules to be applied to all people is extremely difficult to derive and also keep those people at their full potential (truly alive, not merely extensions/puppets/drones).
But so what if two points are different in their location? Why can’t all points be so evenly distributed that being in a different location is irrelevant?
This is where it gets interesting, dating back to at least Aristotle.
Aristotle surmised that one could stack tetrahedrons in such a way as to fill all space. He wasn’t quite correct, but why would Aristotle be concerned with such a thing? There has been a great deal of deep study concerning how to “fill space” or “packing space”. It has commercial interest, but more importantly it has metaphysical impact. This is a primary issue that I had to resolve merely to get Jack up and running.
The issue is one of the logistics of potential and resolves that it is logically impossible for space to be at any state defined as anything other than an infinite series of changing. That might be a little hard to grasp; “The universe cannot ever logically be at any state other than a changing state, including the changing of the changing.” The state of changing can’t even be at any state that isn’t itself changing, nor the changing of the changing, of the changing, of the changing… Logic itself forbids it, not experimental data or speculations.
It can be said that the most fundamental cause of all existence is the logic that requires that the universe cannot be what it is and also remain as it is. That is what has been called the “First Principle”, “First Cause”, and “God the Father” (in the English speaking world anyway).
What you have asked is “what is that logic” so realize the height of the question you are asking and the serious contemplation required to exceed what so very, very many before you could never quite grasp, although very close. That question is at the very root of the legitimate parts of both relativity and quantum mechanics. How to relay the explanation is going to be a sizable challenge for me. So have a little tolerance.
So while I try to come up with the words and/or pictures, let those two concepts soak in because this is going to get seriously hairy.
1) “Potential is not a thing, but a measure of a situation involving locations.”
2) “The universe cannot ever logically be at any state other than a changing state, including the changing, of the changing, of the changing,…”
Btw, all of this is going to get down to the very root of quantum physics, relativity, and why there is so much confusion in that study. Feynman stated that “we” simply do not understand it, we just know that it works. Well, he was probably right in that they didn’t understand it, else they would be saying it differently and causing far less confusion. What they aren’t understanding is that they are conflating two different ontologies, mixing apples and oranges, apparently without realizing it. We are going to get into what is actually going on and why the confusion ever came up.
Something I probably should have included in that list of thoughts to contemplate is the fact that what we call distance is determined only by the immediacy of the ability to affect. Something is more near when it is more immediately affected. Although I am talking about the physical reality, even socially people refer to other people being “close” as a measure of how much immediate affect they have upon each other. The universe gets a bit more precise in that regard. Distance “is caused” by the immediacy of affect. And that is how they got into Relativity and length dilation.
