Universe and Time

I am thinking that you are talking about, for example, the rising and falling of a civilization type, perhaps Roman in nature. In such a case, I can see the two dimensions of time and the rise and fall of the civilization type, but that would be merely a two dimensional wave. For there to be a spiral, three dimensions are required. What would the third dimension be?

You call it “wave”, and that’s not wrong, but not exactly worded. Exactly worded it is – of course – a spiral-cyclic move (which may be also called “wave”). The third dimension is – for example – a kind of technique (technology) or the human evolution (eventually human history, but I doubt that a real human history - in general - exists, because I believe that, referring to all humans, merely cultural history of humans exists). The most interesting point (especially for you, James) is, that the medium, which “communicates” with the cultural “actors” could be “affectance” or a kind of an ”aether“

Planets, moons, and other bodies of a solar system can merely then exist, if a star has “created” them. And so it is for cultures, economies, and art (artefacts) as well: cultures, economies, and arts (artefacts) can merely exist, if a technique (technology) has “created” them. Such a technique can also be a cultural technique, if any culture already exists. Important is that there must be three dimensions when it comes to “start” such a culture (unfortunately the English language requires the word “civilisation”) as described. If there are merely two dimensions, then there are merely techniques as the “primitive” cultures possible, and they are very important as the third dimension for “higher” cultures.

The spiral motion of suns and techniques are quite powerful and quite generous. In their systems, they are even absolutely powerful and absolutely generous; because like every sun in its system any technique in its system is the absolute tyrant and the absolute sponsor.

It is very likely that it is a superior technique of all of nature or what we call the universe, which is identical with what we call creation. Whether we call the creator God, the “unmoved mover”, the “big bang-maker”, the “universe builder”, the “string musician” or simply the “original technician”, that is perhaps more a matter of faith, religious sensitivities and the theological justifications than one of the exact knowledge; but at the beginning everything needs an impulse, a help from - despite the later self-help. I believe that there are several other characteristics, namely different spiral cycles-setting techniques in addition to the initial technique, to some extent as descendants of the early technology, the original technique.

So also a culture needs energy, force to ever come into motion and thus development, or point(s), bodies, “parents” of culture (s) as the start or forerun or circuit object, an object of its spiral cycle.

As we move spirally through the universe, we turn simultaneously to ourselves.

Why not?
The most obvious and easy to explore are humans.

with love,
sanjay

I meant the “the smallest particle involved of life”, not the larger body that we all recognize.

James,

That is one aspect of which i am not sure yet.

As far as humans are concerned, they have a certain style or size of consciousnss. This is not my assumption but i am sure (rather know) about it. But, i cannot say the same about the life in micro forms of life with so confidently.

Having said that, my guess is that there must be a certain level of size of the consciousness, that must be there to interact with manifestations of will (matter) to form a life. And, that minimal sized consciousness particle cannot be devided further. This cannot even either grow big in size by joining with other consciousness particle.

Hinduism also supports this theory. All sects of Hinduism (including Buddhism) say that are 8.4 millon life forms (including plants) and consciousness has to go all those after taking birth each time as a human form ( but only if it does not elevate its spiritual status during human life).

Thus, it remains in the labyrinth. That is why human life is considered so precious and not to be wasted merely in living unpurposely. Moving out from this cycle for ever is Nirvana/enlightenment.

with love,
sanjay

And that is what I have been calling “Anentropic Harmony”.

So for you “Anentropic Harmony” is “Nirvana”?

No… but yes… but no.

Anentropic Harmony is the ultimate stage from which no one departs to become something different. In Buddhism and Hinduism, Nirvana is what they call the “ultimate stage”. But their image of that ultimate stage is one of extreme peace with very little motion or activity. But in reality, peace is not an ultimate stage, merely the beginning of it, the “clearing of the field for the ultimate form to be built”. Anentropic Harmony is a momentous harmony that occupies the prior stage of pure peace and thus becomes stable and eternal. Without the momentum, peace is not stable.

I don’t think Hinduism and Buddhism have a word for Anentropic Harmony. The closest thing is their their word for ultimate eternal heaven. “Anentropic Harmony” describes the make of the ultimate heaven. “Nirvana” is misunderstood to be ultimate heaven (but lacks the required momentum) and is said to be that ultimate stage.

So yes… but no… but yes.

Being dead sounds like a close second but without the momentum.

“Why can’t you kill Buddha?”

…because he is already dead.

I wonder if he knows that or not compared to the rest of us poor pathetic mortals who know nothing after that.

James, you are saying that „existence is that which has affect“, and that in „reality, people are already using the word »exist« to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case, the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected.“. But one can doubt that „the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected“, as you probably know. We just have to know more about the term „having affect“.

I have yet to find anyone who can name anything they believe to exist and yet also believe to have absolutely no affect on anything. At times, they get concerned with the issue of something not having affect on them personally, which is not the issue.

Can you think of anything that you believe to exist and yet also believe has absolutely no affect upon anything?

In RM:AO, it is merely a declared definition for what it means to physically exist, within the ontology. But in reality, I haven’t found anything that didn’t fit that definition anyway. But if someone wants to declare the existence of something that also has no affect upon anything, they are free to do so. They just can’t declare it in RM:AO.

Yes, I can think in that way. The “potential to affect something” and the fact to “be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected” are perhaps not the same thing or, if they are the same thing, perceived differently because there are - for example - different observers, and there is the problem of the subject/object dualism.

By declared definition, Existence is that which has affect.” You are saying that existence is that which has affect. But do all people really use the words “exist” and “existence” as you use them? And if so, what or who ist the one which or who affects what or whom? What or who is the first one? Does an “affectless affect” exist? Is this so called “affectless affect” similar to the so called “unmoved mover”?

Different cultures/civilisations interpret or even construe the reality in a different way than other cultures/civilisations.

Does nothingness or nonentity have any affect? What about the “nirvana”? What do you think about the “nirvana”? And probably in contrast: what does Zinnat think about the “nirvana”? What do you think about Zinnat’s thinking about the “nirvana”? … And so on …

Arminius, I’m trying to understand you

Could you give one example for that?

If I understand you right, you mean the following: When people say that something exists, they mean, that they have the active part by perceiving that what exists with their senses. After James’ ontology, waves of affectance come from the objects to affect them (the people), so that they can perceive the objects (that what exists). In that case the ‘active part’ comes- first- from the objects. Is that right?
If yes, why is it relevant for you who or what affects first who or what?
Or, in other words, does s.th. exist because I see it or because it can be seen by me?
I think in commom usage of the word ‘exist’ people don’t really see a difference in that.

Many people don’t think very much, but if (if!) they really think that something exists, they do it in two different ways: (1) subjectively, so they think existence has merely to do with the thinking subject, and (2) objectively, so they think existence is something which has nothing to do with the thinking subject. Merely the second way is also the way to think that “waves of affectance come from the objects to affect”. If they think “they can perceive the objects”, they actually have to ask themselves, whether that objects “exist” without any subject or because of the “existence” of the perceiving subject, so that objects don’t “exist”. I am speaking about the subject/object dualism. Is subjectivity or objectivity that what we call “reality” or is it both, so that there is no solution for the subject/object dualism?

Still I would like to have an example for s.th. what you believe that exists but doesn’t affect you or anything at all. I can not think this way.

If you think that all around you - everything except you - merely “exists” because of the fact that you are perceiving and thinking, then you can also say that there is nothing that “exists” except you, so you are either merely a subject without any object or both subject and object (or even: there is no subject and no object - because there is no difference between them).

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz once asked:
[list][list][list][list][list][list] “Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?”
(“Why is there anything [being] at all rather than nothing[ness]?”)
[size=80](“Seiendes” is derived from “sein” [“to be”] and means an identical mode of “being”.)[/size][list][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]Do you know the answer?

Or think about the Indian culture/civilisation - the so called “Hinduism” (b.t.w.: I think it is more than merely „Hinduism“) - and its concept of “nirvana”. Do you exactly know what is meant by that? Non-Indian and Indian people have a different understanding of “nirvana”. Is it nothingness, nonentity? (That is the way how Western people understand “nirvana”.) What is it?

Are “affectance” and nothingness perhaps the same? And if so: why? Just because we are able to think the nothingness? Or is the reverse true?

If there is nothing, then there is also no “affectance”. If there is no “affectance”, then there is nothing. The former is true! But is the latter also true?

And do you always think that there is “affectance” everywhere and nothing else? Do you really always think that?

What do you think when you are anxious and don’t know the reason - the cause - for that fact? What or who “affects” you then? Is it the nothingness? And if so, then the nothingness also “affects”, but is it then really nothingness?

We can think the nothingness and the difference between subject and object. Is this difference the nothingness? Or is it even the “affectance”? Or both? Are they the same (see above) or at least similar? If so, then we can’t know anything of them because it is the definition - the linguistic convention or the lingusitic laws - of the word “nothing” to be nothing at all, and the noun for that is “nothingness”.

You can’t just brush aside our ability for thinking the nothingness and the subject/object dualism.

So James’ “RM:AO” has an objective character; the terms “rational metaphysics” and “affectance ontology” claim to be objective, and they are objective. But what about James himself? Is he a part of that objective issue? Is he not present when he argues objectively? And what about the nothingness?

Can you give an example of something that exists, yet has absolutely no affect on anything? Name something for me.

So do you believe that a box only exists when it is being observed? Or that its actual size depends on what someone thought its size was? And if they change their mind, the box changes its size?

Firstly, it doesn’t really matter what ALL people do, but in my experience, I have never found anyone who, after being questioned, can name anything that they believe exists, and yet also believe that same thing has absolutely no affect.

A “declared definition” means that in this ontology (RM:AO), the word is going to mean what it is defined as. Other people can use that same word in many other ways. But in RM:AO, any time the word “exist” is used, it means “having affect”.

Those are another subject. Which came first and which affects which, are separate details from the issue of what it means to exist within the ontology.

By definition, “Affectless affect” is an oxymoron. So no, an “affectless affect” could not exist any more than a “square circle”.

No. An unmoved mover would be something that never moved, but moved something else. An “affectless affect” would be an affect that had no affect. If it had no affect, then it wouldn’t be an affect.

Or are you meaning to ask if there is an “unaffected affect”? That would be a different question but again, is a separate issue from what it means to exist.

I’m not concerned with what “other cultures” might do. They might do anything.

No. “Absolute nothingness” is the “lack of affect”.

???
I don’t know how many worms are in Zinnat’s apple.
Do I have reason to care?

Yes.
It is mathematically impossible for absolute zero affect to be a state or condition at any time, in any place.

Irrelevant.

They are exact opposite. Affectance is the lack of nothingness and Nothingness is the lack of affectance.

I don’t just “think that”, I know that to be incontestable.

But realize that I am talking about one ontology, RM:AO. Many forms of affectance can come together and be named as entities, such as a particle or an atom. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are still merely a clumps of affectance. Literally everything, including the “vacuum” of space is made of affectance.

The thought of nothingness, is not nothingness.
The feeling of something missing, is not the feel of nothing, but rather the lack of the feel of something.
And the lack of a touch, is not the touch of a lack.

I don’t understand what is being asked.

Well, I certainly “can”. But the question is whether I really have to. So far, I’m not seeing those as relevant to anything - yet.

Again, what is the relevance? Define “objective” and you have your answer.
RM:AO doesn’t bother with declaring “objective” versus “subjective”. It’s not relevant until someone gets confused. And frankly, it is a bit like asking if “RM:AO is red, blue, or is it colorless? And if it is colorless, how can we see it or know that it exists?”