RM AND VO

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;

  1. That which changes (physical; eternal disagreement)
  2. That which never changes (conceptual; eternal agreement)
  3. 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;

  1. Steel mill
  2. Engine manufacturer
  3. 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.

But thanks for the reference. :sunglasses:

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).

Just a brief curiousity;
How are you defining “reality” in your ontology?
…try not to use the word “real” in the definition.

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.

So you proposed a “your reality” and “my reality”?
… and I assume no “objective reality”?

Seems that would make attempting to discuss anything a bit pointless.

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.

Well, you didn’t really give a definition for “reality”, but you did associated it with “concrete experience”.
What exactly is “concrete experience”?

Can different people have different concrete experience concerning the same thing/event?

That depends on your values.

The opposite of abstract experience.

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.

So any unique experience to an individual is a “concrete experience”? And thus a personal “reality”?

If their perception is skewed for any reason, then what?

Skewed according to what value set?

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.

Precisely.
But what about before the first “res” (and the first value).
Experience is more fundamental.

A valuer necessarily requires the valued.
The two are connected by definition, with value as the common ground.

I would say that the “valuer” and the “valued” are a result of values first existing, and a preference for this subject/object causal distinction/relative identity.
But value is superceded by experience, which includes lack of value and meaning.
And there is nothing other than experience. Even the concept of not experiencing something is an experience. It doesn’t require any subject/object causal distinction in its pre-meaning “state”, it just “is”, or “is becoming”. It is the set of everything else that cannot include itself, and thus transcends bounds and meaning - unlike the “everything else” that comes from it, and is contained within the set of “experience(s)”.

RM operates entirely from the contradictory premise that some subject’s values are objective values.
As such, any similarities are superficial and moot. Perhaps you might call my idea “Experientialism” as a working title, like a kind of synthesis between Existentialism and Essentialism.

Yes, but consciousness does not require meaning.
Least of all any notion of “objective” meaning (since meaning requires a valuing subject, which objects by definition are not).

Atoms et al. are objects of experience, not subjects that experience.

I am not interested in subjective imaginations that feign objective reality.

Does or does not everything rely on experiential content?

[/quote]
RM:AO begins with pure logic, no observations at all.
[/quote]
You may say so now, not some 20 years back.

Yes. That is what i am referring to.

The problem it that each and every mind is clouded more or less. There is no one there in the history of the whole of mankind, who happens to be bright enough to solve this labyrinth in a single stoke.

We all start from any middle stage then keep it refining by moving back and forth. Though, a very few of us try it. And again, a very few from those few would become able to get real close to A = A.

Yes, actually, we never get the true or pure information of the event, but its blurred version only. And, that blurriness depends on the time/distance travelled by the information to reach us, and the medium also, by which it has been travelled.

That is the problem with JSSRM ( or perhaps JSS, in person) as it does not confirm the observation here.

James, if that huge memory would have been stored in those swollen joints of the neurons, the neuroscientists would have been able to recognize that almost half a century back, as they are not short of means and skills. And, the establishment would have been used this process to convert its citizens into biological robots long ago, because, we are nothing without our memory.

Secondly, the JSSRM does the support the concept or memory.

As it holds that everything is made of affectance, thus, more or less bound to change. But, memory does not change even a fraction. We remember some important events of the life very clearly. In other words, our mind is able to play that file precisely the same way as that happened even 40-50 years ago. This is to say that we go back in time to relive that event.

But, how is it possible, unless and until, there is an entity inside us that is beyond time or eternal?

James, consciousness is both eternal and immutable too. But, i did not clearly mentioned its anotomy.

firstly, At this stage, consciousness is not in pure form. It is a bit like ore state of the metals, like Bauxite in the case of iron. So, it has to be refined in order to get its pure form.

Secondly, though consciousness is unchangeable, but it does not mean that is stationary as it moves around with mind.

Affectance/Will/TSM is that impurity of the consciousness, which it radiates to becomes pure.

We can also say that consciousness gets attracted towards will/affectance, because, it is its default character. You may call it some sort of metaphysical gravitation. That is why it falls only for one will at a time, which is the strongest one and avoids others.

[quote=“James S Saint”]
There are only 3 options;

  1. That which changes (physical; eternal disagreement)
  2. That which never changes (conceptual; eternal agreement)
  3. The border between 1 and 2, an empty set that both changes and doesn’t or neither changes nor doesn’t.

James, i am not sure how you have drawn this conclusion by using JSSRM and you believe which one, but all these options are true and play out in real terms.

The affectance/will has many layers and these layers tend to form different realms, but, this does not happen simultaneously, instead, in order.

[b]1st layer - consciousness + will = mind, space and time (TSM).

This is perhaps your conceptual realm, but it changes as mind tends to change and evolve continuously. And, though, the residing entites stay there for very long time, yet, their stay is not permanent there and they eventually have to come down to lower realms. But remember, that consciousness discards all its affectance in this realm and becomes pure. This discarded affectance/will is what we call mind.

So, from hereon, the further manifestation of the affectance is done by mind, not consciousness. But, by becoming pure and innocent, consciousness loses its control over mind and it (mind) becomes able to drag consciousness along it, because it is still attached with mind through will.

This is a realm of thought and Thought Entities as there is no matter present here.

2nd layer - As mind tends to produce more affectance, its density increases and ultimately forms matter. Yet, this matter is different from our perceived physical matter, though, it is still a matter. We may call it subtle mater. This matter forms elements and body, and again, mind gets attracted towards it, drags consciousness along it, and form a complete physical entity.

This is our divine realm, the realms of Gods, Semi-gods, Deities, Angles and all other different types of spiritual entities. This is the realm of souls but these souls are not eternal but prone to aging and death too.

This is the most populated realm and has many subsets too. All monotheistic and process ontologies/ religions refer to this realm, when they talk about God, except Vedanta, Sufism and some other small schools of Hinduism. The entities of this realm are in direct touch with us. They watch, manage and control us too through circumstances.

3rd layer - As there is no end of affectance, because mind is continuously manifesting it, the denser matter is formed. And that is our Human realm. Those souls get entrapped in one more wrap of matter and a Human is formed. This is the lowest realm.

Entropy peaks here, hence, there is no other option but to go back to un-entropy.

Ultimate realm - This is unique concept of Vedanta and Sufism, though, proess ontologies like Buddhism and Jainism rejects this idea.

This realm is postulaed at parrrell with consciousness, or just a touch below pure consciousness, but above the 1st realm of Thought Entities.

Contrary to Thought Realm, where consciousness loses control over mind and falls down further, here consciousness takes contol over mind. In other words, mind discards all its wills, other than just to exist. In that case, consciousness becomes dominant as it does not have to face any further will. Thus, this perfect combination of consciousness and mind becomes eternal as it moves out of time zone and stays there as that forever. This is to say that, once reached there, it never comes down.

It is a state of almost pure Un-entropy, though not a perfect one. It demands just a hint of entropy or negativity to remain as it is in that state . In other words, it is a form of almost pure consciousness, but just with a hint of will to exist or survive only, not more than that.

That is Enlightenment, thus, it is not to be merely known, but has to be acheived in person. [/b]

RM plays its part in constituting all these realms, but one after one. All these realms has different density of affectance, thus, are different time zones. All entities must correspond to their respective Zonal Affectance. As soon as it gets havier, it has to move down to the lower realm.

James, I am not claiming that all this happens precisely as i am suggusting. Having said that, this is not a pure assumption or completely fake either. I personally experienced many things regarding this, especially about the 2nd layer, the Divine Realm. And, i know that happens to be almost the same as i am saying.

But, JSSRM does not seem to be supporting that. Though, it helped me to understand why a little bit of negativity is necessary to survive. Because, this issue puzzled me since long.

And, the credit goes to you.

That is why i am saying that, though RM is perfect, but JSSRM is not.

I am going through your last post addressed to Jacob as it looks interesting.

with love,
sanjay

On top of the page there is something I didn’t address yet.

The valuer is not a valuer if it is not a standard for valuing. I observed that nothing can exist that is not a self-valuing valuer.
All affect has to be related to other affect to be affect.
That means that the affect must also have a relation to itself.
This is self-valuing.

I would not have the first clue how to begin explaining it in scientific terms, other than just following observation. In this sense RM makes perfect sense - it does precisely what VO does not do and can not do - define in objective terms of “causality” in the sense of affectance.

VO comes in its right when particles already exist. We can see that, in affectance’s rise out of nothing, a singular tendency has survived: Consistent selection of input and consistent output.

In the form of the atom, this is its anentropic shell and (I guess) its non-collapsed PtA. In the form of an animal, it is its instinct and its powers. In an infinitesimal quantity of PtA, it is its potential to be affected, and its “spirit” as you once called it, it’s action. That by which it is known.

RM is fully identifiable. Its definitions pertain to that which is clearly present.
VO addresses what is required to have definitions at all: the fact that there are relations. The fact that PtA is differentiated and yet coherent. It gives no cause for this, it merely deduces the first necessary qualities of something that does affect, exist.

Only in a sentient being. VO moves beyond the solipsism without abandoning perspectivism. In your philosophy, do atoms exist if you die? Do the people who existed in your mind still exist to interpret the world as atoms?

VO compares an atom to a sentient being, by an activity – in the linguistic sense - a verb that can be attributed to them – that they both exhibit: selection of external energy in order to sustain a mechanism that performs this selection. I reduced this to valuing, because that which is being selected is called value. Between the selection and the value, there arises a positive. The perspective becomes.

That is a stance comparable to RM (the ‘raw stuff’ of which valuers are made to feed themselves of, is already present). VO take the opposite option. This can not be explained physically, it rather stands behind physicality – very literally meta-physical.

Does an experience experience itself? I want to know what “experience” means. Experience always involves resistance. Non-resistance is death, the end of experience.
Experience requires an experiencer like value requires a valuer.
What is the relation between the experience and the experiencer?

It does make claims to objectively existing objects, yes.
VO is more skeptic - in that it only describes that which can exist. If something exists, then it is doing this standard-setting selecting whereby it continues to exist.

Indeed. “Objective meaning” - this literally hurts my brain.

But they do exist. To us.
What are they? How did they come to be?

Who is? It’s just extremely unlikely that there is only a single and utterly homogenous standard of causality.

I don’t know. I can’t verify either.