AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

You don’t mean to say that you cast a challenge to me that you couldn’t answer to yourself? :confused:

Ahaha.

Shut the hell up, false one. You only amuse yourself, except that you aren’t even doing that anymore. Death only breeds maggots.

Let’s contrast your deathmaggotry with something else;

So as his fanatical representative, you are offering an answer?

Nothing to say?

Obviously the nihilstic VO doesn’t have more to offer than a handful of megalomaniac solipsists with occasional tantrums.

Kek

No, thats actually the question I asked about RM, remember?
It doesn’t work with respect to VO. VO is, as Ive explained a few hundred times since 2011, and which dozens of quicker minds already picked up on, the resolution of the question “why”.

People with the courage to know their own valuing are permitted use of VO. Others, evidently should be very wary.

And I answered that question with great detail, many years ago and again on this thread, remember?

Yes. That seems to be the case. VO is without explanation, despite:

Your statement that it is of concern for VO.
Yet you have no answer for it??

Oh, I see. It is “the resolution to why”. I take that to mean that “it just is”, as you accused of RM:AO. You presume it to need no explanation?

If you meant something else, please explain.

Try to leave your ego and threats out of it. As you said, “if we stick to logic, we can get along”.

As long as you believe it yourself, and can sleep tight.

Love ya man.
Take care.

So I will be leaving behind AO, as it does not want to adapt to reality, it doesn’t want to self-value, it doesn’t respond to actual terms, it doesn’t itself affect. I just tried to get it to affect by confronting it with reality. But things really have to be real for that. (Logically, first a thing has to be real, then it can affect, unlike AO’s presumed order, which is a heavy handed reversal of logic, demanding the conclusion to sufficiently prescribe the conditions.)

VO gets the “why” ontoglogized. It recognizes the question itself as existent.
That wasn’t so hard, was it?
And yet it took over 2500 years.

Bad habit - philosophy disregarding itself. Ive forced it to quit that habit.

Next time you choose to cast a challenge, you might consider first ensuring that you can answer to it yourself.

And when and if you ever wake up from your delusion, try to figure out why you ever decided to be an enemy. You will be surprised and a bit disheartened by the reality of it.

What does it mean for a thing to be real?

So what value do either have in the grand scheme of things?

How do either attempt to help or hinder the human race?

What would be the reason given to study either or both?

Should there not be a reason given to begin with that motivates any given person to pursue either discipline?

Finally, how are we better off given that the world seems to function without either?

The world was functioning before Science as well. The world must always be functioning prior to any advancement. That is why there could be no beginning. And why there shall be no end.

RM, and more specifically AO, are aimed at gaining a full ontological understanding of “God, Man, Me, and Reality”, beyond Man’s current level. RM:AO is the coup de grâce of the struggle to finally put all of the pieces into a single understanding, to finally see very clearly how and why it ALL works as it does.

The need to see such is only driven by Man’s abuse of himself and all things as he lusts for an impossible and unneeded absolute control. RM:AO reveals what absolutely can and cannot be done, and in principle how to accomplish from the status quo to whatever the goal. Of course such would be very analytical and complex, although still much simpler than modern science would have it. RM:AO is for the very few serious thinkers not blinded by personal passions (pride, ego, fear, hatred,…).

Basically it is an extremely detailed map of principles concerning “how to get along with the universe” derived from “why the universe does what it does”. It reveals the highest level of priority from which grand decisions can be made without losing one’s way or getting lost in doubt or presumption within the maze of methods and moralities.

When fully grasped, it answers with certainty the age old question, “What should I/we do? And Why?” Thus ending unnecessary conflict, struggle, and suffering before it ever begins. Being so extremely comprehensive, RM:AO spews general principles and aphorisms concerning every topic. But unlike that great fiery ball in the sky, it is not merely an intensely bright light, but a floodlight of laser coherent illumination, lighting all terrains whether day or night.

As far as any one individual, each individual must step from where they are and thus have differing needs at different times even if intending the same goal.

Within the noise, there is logic and understanding, a “firmament within the clouds”. And with such understanding arises order and clarity, simplifying the burden upon the mind.

  • Let negative things be fleeting and small.
  • Expect and allow for positive things to accumulate more slowly through give and take within the noise.
  • Filter what comes to you by its relative value to what you are, not that for which you want.
  • Support that which supports you.
  • Match impedance with patience.

The list could go on and on.

There is no end to it. And there is no beginning, save from wherever you are.

So if you kill a pig this means you are killing something within yourself?

Jakob?

I missed this reply. Sorry encode.

VO allows man to be completely honest before himself. I don’t know about RM.

VO will simply allow human forcefulness to be cast in living forms, drawing it out of the deathly metaphysical economy which employs it now.
Essentially VO eliminates Metaphysics.
Value is never metaphysical.

Studying them back to back or side by side is useful in comparing the logics.
Through the lens of VO we can see how contrary to Valuing, Affectance is too much of a general term. It never leaves Metaphysics, always remains abstract.

Im not so sure about that. Shouldnt it speak for itself?

I dont see the world as functioning. We have another few decades or so before all forestry is gone. By some measures we’ve lost 75 percent of species the past century.

Without the logic of being as valuing, human beings will never be able to see what it is they’re destroying. So they will keep destroying.
I see VO, the acceptance of being as valuing, as the only way to avoid the extinction of life on the planet.

No problem. I was just curious why the two ontologies were being compared in the first place since they both appear to be on different levels.

Have you ever thought about this? >> We are all looking at the same thing . . . from different angles maybe but nonetheless, we are all looking at the same thing. You do not need to answer that question because it seems to me that you have thought about this exact thing - that is that we are all looking at the same thing. Communication is an attempt at finding someone to understand what we are saying and we miss so much of what is being said because as you sort of state most people are only attuned to the language inside their own head.

Sorry for my short response - I welcome further discussion on both AO and VO but I like to start things here - with the attempt at looking at the same thing :slight_smile:

I’m still trying to catch up on James’ AO thing. He had an incredible number of posts on the subject. Is there someplace he specified a purpose for believing AO other than consistency in thought and seeking truth?

obsrvr524

It is nice to see somebody comment here in this thread - I assume Jakob is just too busy to continue this conversation with me at this point in time.

Hmm, well James sure did have an amazing array of posts on the subject of AO, and Mithus, one of the members here, has also published two editions of a book on AO, one in English and one in German. I think consistency in thought and seeking truth is a good enough purpose for believing anything. I myself am still analyzing different parts of RM:AO >> toward the end of my communication with James we seemed to have a lot of misunderstandings with the subject but I am pretty sure I have gotten a good grasp on the subject despite what he said. I think he just liked things to be very clear with no ambiguity between proponents in the conversation but I fear he was misunderstanding my understanding on the topic.

I will settle with what I believe to be my good understanding of RM:AO and my being able to see the missing parts that James may have run out of time to see.

:smiley: