'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:36 pm

All of that yesterday was based on the concept of nothing. Because the logic from that point on was correct, it resulted in the accurate description of religious orders built on the deflection of death.

Greek religion is something very different - fundamentally different even - instead of an image of horror in the center, which one has to negatively value to become part of the ring, (to accept Jesus as savior is to accept the existence of evil) but an unsurmountable myth of greatness - the Olympian celebration of standards, beauty and will, to which the Greeks would try to mirror themselves knowing full well it was in vain, but worth the try because trying and failing was the monument to the glory of the real-life Gods.

It is essentially the difference between a religion to facilitate a naturally occurring rising force and a religion defending a naturally decaying force. The only chance we have of bringing value ontology to fruition as a politics is by applying it to the world as it exists.
I am perfectly willing to accept RM as an explanation and ontology of affectance, and use it as the substance from which self-valuings are born. I have something similar in my mind as their 'ground', but the potential is more abstract, not translated into force.

We can only interpret potential as potential in terms of the thing it has potential to be. This is indeed something that 'slows the nothingness down', whether this nothingess is called potential or simply the absence of impossibility for anything at all.

Whatever does exist, be it a clog of noise or a diamond, is already technically a self-valuing. Self-valuings do not need to last forever - not even very long, to obey the law: everything that persists is a self-valuing. The indication of something is defining of it as self-valuing. it is an epistemic ontology, I suppose - a philosophy void of assumption.

Your only basic assumption is: things have an active cause. I don't assume that, I simply observe that there is existence and it is made of a certain type of things, things that are, by their structural definition, cause to their own persistence, whereby they can be 'said to exist' by such things as themselves.

But having said all this, if all you say about Jack is true, your way of establishing the operative formula of that cause and programming the environment where it occurs, has been perfectly deduced from what can be observed to exist. Affectance would probably be what Nietzsche calls the bestowing virtue. I still call that the absence of impossibility. I find it more economic - it requires statements to contain it, it does not by itself contain, is not contained by it's nature. And only the 'best' statements can contain the essential possibility, because otherwise they are trumped by better possibilities.

I have been playing by your rules, valuing value ontology in terms of RM. Attempt to account for the ground of RM from within value ontology, has led to a definition o fit's most 'deadly' manifestation - the militaristic moral order. It was an epistemological experiment that led to surprising clarity about society as it was and is in many places. Now it is time to consider RM in terms of other philosophy, such as to begin with, Nietzsche. That is if you are truly interested in helping getting this group off the ground - Capable, Amasopher and I all are versed primarily in Nietzsche. In other words - Nietzsche is unavoidably part of our terms.

I suggest that we begin a book study of one of Nietzsche's books - to be voted on perhaps.
It would make sense to invite also Parodites in this discussion. I suspect that RM can to a great degree "withstand" Nietzsche - come to terms with it - and also also that Nietzsche can withstand most of RM.

If we can find out where the two come into conflict, we have made great strides, as so far Nietzsche has not been challenged, only extended upon. Philosophers since Nietzsche have been standing on his shoulders. Your challenge may be the first serious attempt in a long time - and you may underestimate the relevance of this to the future of human thought.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:41 am

1) Valuing is an action. In abstract terms, exactly what is that action? And what is it not?


2) Four blocks, each can be said to be self-valuing. They are placed into the form of a square on a table. Is the square "self-valuing"?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:53 am

1) Existing in such as way as to select (respond selectively to) what can become part of this existing.

2) "A block" is not a self-valuing.

I refer to to the summary of value ontology.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.







 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:43 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
1) Existing in such as way as to select (respond selectively to) what can become part of this existing.
Well, that didn't actually answer my question. You merely replaced the word "valuing" with "selecting".

Fixed Cross wrote:
2) "A block" is not a self-valuing.

I refer to to the summary of value ontology.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.
Emm.. so you are saying that in VO, blocks don't exist at all??? Question

Before you were talking about merely particles "self-valuing" and that nothing could exist if not self-valuing.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:33 am



That is what I am seeing currently.
VO seems to be missing the ontological elements of "what is being valued".
Also, as the complexity of the system rises, VO maintains the same wording. RM maintains the same principles, best described in CPA, but uses the words and concepts involved in the higher model.

On the CPA level, you have "Potential and Changing Potential (Affectance)"
Which builds to;
The RMA level, where you have "Reactive Materials and Algorithms (Chemistry, Neurology,..)"
Which builds to;
The PIV level, where you have "Perception of Information and Valuing (Living Beings)"
Which builds to;
The SSD level, where you have "Social Structures and Dynamics (Groups, Societies, Nations,...)"

Note that on each level there is a thing and an action (a complete sentence/thought). That is why the same principles can be applied to each level, from absolute nothingness to social groupings.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:32 am

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
1) Existing in such as way as to select (respond selectively to) what can become part of this existing.
Well, that didn't actually answer my question. You merely replaced the word "valuing" with "selecting".
Remember it is you personally to whom the term valuing is not clear. To ask of me that to replace the central term of my philosophy is to ask me to dismiss the philosophy.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
2) "A block" is not a self-valuing.

I refer to to the summary of value ontology.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.
Emm.. so you are saying that in VO, blocks don't exist at all??? Question
No, just that they are not entities.
Blocks consist, obviously, of atoms, and molecules. These are self-valuings.

Surely you can see that a block doesn't actively interact with it's environment, that it doesn't sustain itself by it's energetic actions.

Quote :
Before you were talking about merely particles "self-valuing" and that nothing could exist if not self-valuing.
I mean that nothing persists (ultimately), facing the entropic forces of the universe. A block must be created by a man or circumstance, but it does not come into being by necessities implicit in physical nature, and does not enforce it's own maintenance by interpreting the world it is part of to suit it's own structural integrity. In RM, a block doesn't have this 'border' that you describe in terms of affectance-clogging. Basically a self-valuing is only that which, from a perspective of value ontology, is 'self-created', consists by virtue of elemental necessities - and in terms of RM, is created by the essential nature of affectance.

A block, as any object that we might create and use, is a function of the self-valuing that created it. Try to look at it this way: if you put four humans in a room, what happens? They interact. Put for atoms in a room, what happens? They interact. Put for blocks in a room. What happens? Nothing.

Value ontology id designed/formulated to account for everything that exists in terms of the most basic activity. It is another word for the verb "being", but much clearer. A block is not "a being". It is part of being, but not itself a generator of it.



 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:13 pm

James S Saint wrote:


That is what I am seeing currently.
VO seems to be missing the ontological elements of "what is being valued".
That is precisely why it is a universally applicable theory. What is being valued foremost is the terms of valuing itself, the existence, the perpetuating mechanism of valuing. Whatever is being valued outside of that entity is secondary and is described in terms of the self-valuing.

Quote :
Also, as the complexity of the system rises, VO maintains the same wording. RM maintains the same principles, best described in CPA, but uses the words and concepts involved in the higher model.
The wording is the point.
Philosophy is language. (As is science). Man has not yet learned to honestly approach language as a phenomenon. "Value" is in all respects the crucial concept in linguistic and logic constructions. Value ontology identifies the logical requirement of the phenomenon value, which is itself the logical requirement for logic.

Quote :
On the CPA level, you have "Potential and Changing Potential (Affectance)"
Which builds to;
The RMA level, where you have "Reactive Materials and Algorithms (Chemistry, Neurology,..)"
Which builds to;
The PIV level, where you have "Perception of Information and Valuing (Living Beings)"
Which builds to;
The SSD level, where you have "Social Structures and Dynamics (Groups, Societies, Nations,...)"

Note that on each level there is a thing and an action (a complete sentence/thought). That is why the same principles can be applied to each level, from absolute nothingness to social groupings.
And that is exactly why RM doesn't work as an entity: it changes it's structural terms when the context changes. Value ontology on the other hand adapts all circumstances and context to it's own terms. This is why it has the power to persist. It contains subject, object and verb in this one term: value. The self-valuing is the subject, the value is the object, the valuing the verb. Everything that can possibly happen in this existence can be explained as the interplay of "self-valuings valuing in terms of their self-value".

The formula is ideally suited for explanation. We can not define more effectively than by turning language inside out like this. What is required to understand it, is to abandon the typical 'faith' in language that man has had since time immemorial. Language itself needs to be brought under control of the intellect.

What needs to be done if RM and value ontology are to fully encounter each other, is to describe all the terms of RM in terms of value and self-valuing. I have made some steps to this with affectance, but it also needs to be done with chemistry and neorlogy. Groups, societies and nations are already perfectly understood in these terms - we simply have to observe the terms a society uses to designate it's values, and we know how it works, what stimulates it, what it will reject. That is all we need to know if we want to maintain or change it. This also goes for living beings.

But if we can figure it out in terms of chemistry and neurology, we are going much deeper - we are moving to explain the origin of life.
And RM has no explanation for the emergence of life, or does it?

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:28 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Remember it is you personally to whom the term valuing is not clear. To ask of me that to replace the central term of my philosophy is to ask me to dismiss the philosophy.
I didn't ask that you replace it. I was just saying that you had merely replaced it with your reply to my request. I had asked that you Define it in your own terms, which you have now done with this;
Quote :
enforce it's own maintenance by interpreting the world it is part of to suit it's own structural integrity
So you are saying that the action of "valuing" involves "maintenance", "interpreting", and "structure". A structure is a form, as in "In-form-ation". And thus you now have PIV - "Perception (interpreting) Information (structures) and Value (Hopes and Threats)".

PIV is a "complete" ontological thought as long as you don't get into the details of un-intentional valuing where perception and interpreting no longer have coherent meaning, what is, is what is (regardless of any interpreting).

So you are saying that VO is to include "Information Theory" in some form. That isn't a problem, although might be a little scary. Information theorists tend to become solipsists and declare that reality is ONLY what you interpret it to be. That is what led to the many films that you can find involving the "Spheres" (such as the film Sphere) and also the perception matrix depicted in The Matrix. Focus on interpretation or perception leads into manipulation pretty quickly (the Serpent in the Garden).

If you merely take out the "interpreting or perceiving", then you are talking about CPA. But the word and concept of "valuing" is very misleading on that level, as I have pointed out before.


Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :

Emm.. so you are saying that in VO, blocks don't exist at all??? Question
No, just that they are not entities.
Blocks consist, obviously, of atoms, and molecules. These are self-valuings.
A block is merely a very large molecule. The only real distinction is the amount of space between the atoms involved.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Surely you can see that a block doesn't actively interact with it's environment, that it doesn't sustain itself by it's energetic actions.
It behaves exactly in the same way as a molecule of that shape.

I get the impression that you want to leave out the "form" and just use the action of valuing as the only existence. But even subatomic particles are only "particles" because of their form. And it is their form that causes them to be able to "self-value". The form is an integral part of the process. In any other form, it could not maintain itself.

Fixed Cross wrote:
A block, as any object that we might create and use, is a function of the self-valuing that created it. Try to look at it this way: if you put four humans in a room, what happens? They interact. Put for atoms in a room, what happens? They interact. Put for blocks in a room. What happens? Nothing.

Value ontology is designed/formulated to account for everything that exists in terms of the most basic activity. It is another word for the verb "being", but much clearer. A block is not "a being". It is part of being, but not itself a generator of it.

As I thought. You are trying to make an entire ontology (a description of all that is) out of half of a complete thought, out of merely the action. One could merely say, "Doing Ontology", "Changing Ontology", "Being Ontology" - "doing what, changing what, being what? And valuing what? Valuing "Itself"... BUT WHAT IS ITSELF?. Merely valuing the valuing is a puff of air in the wind.

But anyway. At least now I see where you are thinking.
I'm not certain that I can relate it directly to the RM concerns for power and influence.
But we'll see.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:49 pm

And btw, in terms of Ahdam, you are trying to be the "Ah" without the "dam". You can't firm up the chaos ("dam it up" into a form) by merely telling everyone to take action. It becomes merely a single huge spherical clump of noise, within which you are merely a subatomic particle in the thundercloud. You are competing with a much, much larger version of yourself. You would be like a single drop of rain trying to reign over the thunderstorm.

The spec of metal crystallizes the sodium acetate by taking away something that the fluid (all of the action) already had too much of. It, in effect, "freezes" a very small part of the fluid. The rest of the fluid then adheres to that immutable spec and becomes frozen as well. The spec of metal is the "dam", not the "Ah"; the "form", not the "action".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:56 pm

Below a quick sketch of what would 'happen to RM' if it were to be interpreted in terms of value ontology. It would if correct not change anything about RM, just make all that happens as described by RM understandable in similar terms. Only then there truly is a comprehensive Theory of Everything - it needs to be one theory. RM is a set of theories derived from a unified understanding. The only thing that is not included in RM is language itself. This is why, when formulated in language, the understanding 'falls apart' in different pieces. This "entropy" might be said to be caused by the absence of 'nuclear force' within the verbalized theory.

RM may very well convey a perfect understanding of the physical universe - but to convey this understanding perfectly, the language that forms the theory must be subject to the laws as they are conveyed by the theory.

-----------------------

SSD
Self-valuings entwined with each other under governing values dictated from above, which pertain to a self-valuing society, which once have been established by powerfully expressive self-valuings.

PIV
Self-valuings valuing the world in terms of their self-consciousness.

RMA
Self-valuings obtaining value from their different parts of their body, which 'filter' the world for values to absorb and reject materials that do no longer contain value in terms of self-value.

CPA
Self-valuings obtaining the fundamental substance of self-valuing 'out of no-thing' - i.e. out of non-self-valuing.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:31 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
different parts of their body, which 'filter' the world for values to absorb and reject materials that do no longer contain value in terms of self-value.
"different parts"
"materials"
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:43 pm

What you seem to be saying is that there is a 'key' to coherence (of a self-valuing), that you want me to identify.

The chemistry of society, and the crucial binding element.

it is not that I am not interested or willing to take on this question - but we need to closer identify the sort of society-entity such a key would enable for me to be able to think about it in the first place.

I suggest we try to clarify this in the group-thread, but I will also dedicate a new thread to this question.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:08 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
What you seem to be saying is that there is a 'key' to coherence (of a self-valuing), that you want me to identify.

The chemistry of society, and the crucial binding element.
Rational Metaphysics is not an ontology, but a way of thinking, a mindset that offers an ontology. That ontology is fundamentally based upon Potential to Affect, "PtA", and Affect (or the changing of that potential), together called merely "Affectance". It could be called, "Affectance Ontology". The ontology covers every conceivable form and type of affect. And since affect is what existence means, it covers all existence.

Power and affect are virtually the same thing. Do you suspect for even a moment that there is any form or type of Power that Affectance Ontology or Rational Metaphysics doesn't reveal?

The issue isn't the formula for power.
The issue is to whom to allow to have it.

For thousands of years, none have earned that position. Those who earn it today cannot be merely like those before them. They must do what hasn't been done and more so now than ever because the tide is high. Think just how seriously perfect that snow cone in Hell would really have to be, just to have the power to survive.

The Equation for Space


Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:36 am

Here is a question concerning power and Self-Valuing...

In the case of an electron and a positron, when very close at all, they annihilate each other. They had the same charge potential. They had the same mass. Why didn't self-valuing protect them?

In the case of an electron and a proton, they seem to get along just fine. They too have the same charge potential. But they seem to cooperate and maintain themselves individually and form a group. Neither becomes the other. And neither compromises its "Self". And many such instances creates all that we call "material" throughout the entire universe.

So why does self-valuing work for one case, but not the other?
They both had "self-valuing", so what is missing in the Value-Ontological concern of explaining all things?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Here is a question concerning power and Self-Valuing...

In the case of an electron and a positron, when very close at all, they annihilate each other. They had the same charge potential. They had the same mass. Why didn't self-valuing protect them?

In the case of an electron and a proton, they seem to get along just fine. They too have the same charge potential. But they seem to cooperate and maintain themselves individually and form a group. Neither becomes the other. And neither compromises its "Self". And many such instances creates all that we call "material" throughout the entire universe.

So why does self-valuing work for one case, but not the other?
They both had "self-valuing", so what is missing in the Value-Ontological concern of explaining all things?
If a leaden ball the weight of a man crashes into a man, the man stops self-valuing. He ceases to exist.
The man is not able to value the impact of the leaden ball in terms of his own self-valuing.

Value ontology makes no claims about invulnerability of anything or anyone.
It merely describes that which must be present in a thing if it is to employ energy to continue it's existence.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:36 pm

Self-valuing is a minimal requirement for existing entities.
It does not contain explicitly all specific requirements for all specific things.

"Self-valuing" is necessary, not sufficient. All beings are self-valuing, but self-valuing is not all there is to all beings.
However, I do think that the logic of self-valuing implies, down the line, all properties - that implicitly it is sufficient.

Responding to the electron/positron annihilation - I believe I addressed that in my "hollow leg" post.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:36 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology makes no claims about invulnerability of anything or anyone.
It merely describes that which must be present in a thing if it is to employ energy to continue it's existence.
And that is called a "philosophy". To be an "ontology" it would have to include what is being valued; the components of itself, the materials, forms, and processes perceived as good (of value to itself).

The electron and the positron annihilate each other because they join in equal partnership. They compromise what each represents individually and because they represent opposite affects, they reduce each other to nothing but fleeting noise. The man wants to see a good science fiction movie. The wife wants to see a dramatic documentary. So they compromise and watch a fictionally dramatized documentary on the development of science. Neither really feels satisfied. The easiest way to break up a marriage is to make the man and wife equal partners (as businesses in the USA discovered during the 70's. 70% of all equal partnership companies failed in the heat.).

Of course the alternative would have been to watch a dramatic science fiction that was largely true, perhaps an alien world involved in a similitude of a documented love story during WW2.

A group is required to obtain power. I hope that doesn't need argumentative support. A group requires bonding of entities that are attracted to what they critically do not have (their essence), but are not giving up what they critically do have. "Critically" in this case meaning what it is that maintains their true "self". But that bond WILL require that they give up (sacrifice) things that were not critical to their true self.

The strongest bonds are between representatives of opposite talents that are not required to give up their expertise in order to cooperate with their opposite. Life itself is formed of the perceiver and the affecter, combined such that the hand does not deceive the eye nor the eye deceive the hand. They are bound by the constraints imposed by the mind. If they ignore the mind, they each deceive the other and life is lost to random short-lived noise.

In the case of the electron and the proton, what prevents them from annihilation is actually the speed with which they try to become one. At the natural speed of the approaching electron lusting for what it lacks, it cannot give up what it represents, its "expertise". It simply cannot compromise as quickly as would be required. So it takes a different course (not being capable of standing still). It orbits. And thus they never have to give up what they are, their "true self". And they stay as close as they can get considering that restraint.

If one could merely manage to have the electron slowly approach the proton, they would actually unite. But due to another difference between them, they would envelop each other into a Neutron and annihilate only the their independent charge potential, not the mass nor the charge that they were. They give up their independence, but they maintain both charges within the mass. A neutron is basically a electron inside a proton.

In one case, they are bonded in a "weak force" manner and in the other, a "strong force" manner. In both cases, they had to give up their independence and their individual charge upon the world. But in both cases they are still there.. and for a very long time to come.

The bonding restraints filter out the incompatibilities, but preserves the expertise. Both the atom and the neutron represent a valuing of the bond over the individuality. The greater bond removes any discernible distinction between them, leaving very little means for divisive separation of them.

The molecule of course is even a weaker type of bonding... between bondings. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that such grouping can grow endlessly by such a means. Neutrons, atoms, and molecules can only get so big before they have little chance of survival. Size is extremely important. Bigger is NOT better beyond a very specific point.

"Hold onto the good", sacrifice whatever else is required such as to form the strongest bond for the situation.

The group is currently a newly formed snowflake in Hell. It has a certain crystalline form within. But if it is to rise to power and survive the actual environment that it is in, anything that isn't of true pure self, must be sacrificable. Note my willingness to "sacrifice" possible ego issues and change the lettering and wording of my "House of RM" (replacing "Hope and Threat" with "Value"). I maintained the essence of what it stood for, but gave up the details.

Now with that all in mind, and with careful consideration of the goal, is "Self-valuing" an "Ontology" or a "Philosophy"? How strong do you really want the group (the bond) to be? How much "power" are you really after? Cool




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:54 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology makes no claims about invulnerability of anything or anyone.
It merely describes that which must be present in a thing if it is to employ energy to continue it's existence.
And that is called a "philosophy". To be an "ontology" it would have to include what is being valued; the components of itself, the materials, forms, and processes perceived as good (of value to itself).
It is essentially an alternative way of using logic to draw consequences. It is not yet a fully formed ontology, but it does hold the ontological basics; it gives the most fundamental nature of beings as a logical formula. I am willing to do call it 'value-logic', with the note that the logic 'brings about being' and is this the onto (being) - logos ("the word", logic), What you call ontology I am used to calling cosmology.

Quote :
The electron and the positron annihilate each other because they join in equal partnership. They compromise what each represents individually and because they represent opposite affects, they reduce each other to nothing but fleeting noise. The man wants to see a good science fiction movie. The wife wants to see a dramatic documentary. So they compromise and watch a fictionally dramatized documentary on the development of science. Neither really feels satisfied. The easiest way to break up a marriage is to make the man and wife equal partners (as businesses in the USA discovered during the 70's. 70% of all equal partnership companies failed in the heat.).

Of course the alternative would have been to watch a dramatic science fiction that was largely true, perhaps an alien world involved in a similitude of a documented love story during WW2.
Very nice. I can work with such examples.

Quote :
A group is required to obtain power. I hope that doesn't need argumentative support. A group requires bonding of entities that are attracted to what they critically do not have (their essence), but are not giving up what they critically do have. "Critically" in this case meaning what it is that maintains their true "self". But that bond WILL require that they give up (sacrifice) things that were not critical to their true self.

The strongest bonds are between representatives of opposite talents that are not required to give up their expertise in order to cooperate with their opposite. Life itself is formed of the perceiver and the affecter, combined such that the hand does not deceive the eye nor the eye deceive the hand. They are bound by the constraints imposed by the mind. If they ignore the mind, they each deceive the other and life is lost to random short-lived noise.
I agree that ideally tasks are designated according to nature and all ranking is contextual. Further, "equality" is literally nothingness, as in equality, non-differentiation, no value can be designated. Value is difference. Self-valuing is also self-difference - as, if there is such a thing as valuing at all, there must be a 'slot' for this value to be assimilated, the self-valuing values it's capacity to value, designates itself to itself by valuing something outside of itself -

But as I discovered in that post you perceived as Abrahams hollow leg, valuing-outward must be also a negative valuing, a negative reflection of the 'self' - a valuing of what the self-valuing is not, so that the context is increased without coherence being lost. If self-valuings 'confuse themselves with each other', they lose their perspective on the void, which they were both of them repelling together, with combined, instead of 'averaged', strength.

Quote :
In the case of the electron and the proton, what prevents them from annihilation is actually the speed with which they try to become one. At the natural speed of the approaching electron lusting for what it lacks, it cannot give up what it represents, its "expertise". It simply cannot compromise as quickly as would be required. So it takes a different course (not being capable of standing still). It orbits. And thus they never have to give up what they are, their "true self". And they stay as close as they can get considering that restraint.
Yes, and this expertise issue is why I wish to engage Nietzsche with RM and value-logic, if only to come to terms with the fact that most of us were shaped into philosophers under the influence of Nietzsche. I think we are all curious where you see the flaw in Nietzsche precisely - show us your difference here.

Quote :
If one could merely manage to have the electron slowly approach the proton, they would actually unite. But due to another difference between them, they would envelop each other into a Neutron and annihilate only the their independent charge potential, not the mass nor the charge that they were. They give up their independence, but they maintain both charges within the mass. A neutron is basically a electron inside a proton.
I did not know that. That is fascinating.

Quote :
In one case, they are bonded in a "weak force" manner and in the other, a "strong force" manner. In both cases, they had to give up their independence and their individual charge upon the world. But in both cases they are still there.. and for a very long time to come.

The bonding restraints filter out the incompatibilities, but preserves the expertise. Both the atom and the neutron represent a valuing of the bond over the individuality. The greater bond removes any discernible distinction between them, leaving very little means for divisive separation of them.
Like the unity of self-valuings deflecting nothingness together while repelling each other because they are by definition of their not-self deflecting, separate. Only when people are 'merged' do they cease to repel the nothingness, and are drawn into tragic fate.

Quote :
The molecule of course is even a weaker type of bonding... between bondings. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that such grouping can grow endlessly by such a means. Neutrons, atoms, and molecules can only get so big before they have little chance of survival. Size is extremely important. Bigger is NOT better beyond a very specific point.
Indeed, but we are at this point slightly too small to really call it a group - not because 4 is necessarily too few, but because we do not all fully weigh in. This is besides business also a matter of a lack of a common ground.

Quote :
"Hold onto the good", sacrifice whatever else is required such as to form the strongest bond for the situation.

The group is currently a newly formed snowflake in Hell. It has a certain crystalline form within. But if it is to rise to power and survive the actual environment that it is in, anything that isn't of true pure self, must be sacrificable. Note my willingness to "sacrifice" possible ego issues and change the lettering and wording of my "House of RM" (replacing "Hope and Threat" with "Value"). I maintained the essence of what it stood for, but gave up the details.
You'll have noticed my willingness to do the same - and none of us have held on to ego-issues at all.
We just lack clarity of shared purpose - we have not collectively identified 'the void' or the 'chaos' against which we exist as a group.
If you will be able to identify this chaos, this danger, as you perceive it in Nietzsche, you will strongly focus the groups attention. But you can not do this alone since he is not your field of expertise - we will need to present you with texts. I will work on that, if you will consider this kind of work.

Quote :
Now with that all in mind, and with careful consideration of the goal, is "Self-valuing" an "Ontology" or a "Philosophy"? Cool
"Self-valuing" is the first declarative statement on which an ontology is built following a logic phrased as "self-valuing + valuing in terms of self-value". The self-valuing is a self-maintaining standard. It describes not all that ever can be at any given time, but it describes what exists in time; coherence of substance in motion.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:37 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
It is not yet a fully formed ontology

Fixed Cross wrote:
Further, "equality" is literally nothingness, as in equality, non-differentiation, no value can be designated.
Precisely!

Fixed Cross wrote:
Yes, and this expertise issue is why I wish to engage Nietzsche with RM and value-logic, if only to come to terms with the fact that most of us were shaped into philosophers under the influence of Nietzsche. I think we are all curious where you see the flaw in Nietzsche precisely - show us your difference here.
I haven't been looking for flaws in Nietzsche and would rather not go looking for them. I can find flaw in anything and everyone. Proving why someone else is wrong about anything is not my job nor of interest to me. On Eugene's ILP thread, I warned him that I can find flaw in anything, but I would rather merely express my understanding and let him see how it fits or not. But as soon as he saw that it wasn't going the way he wanted (several times), he repelled into a total denial of every word I said. So eventually, I decided to show him what is wrong with the theory that he was promoting. He isn't a happy camper now.

The way I see it is that I am not talking to Nietzsche, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Aristotle or who ever anyone might be worshiping. It doesn't matter to me what THEY said. What matters is what the person with whom I am discussing an issue with understands, regardless of where they got the idea. If they believe something ONLY because some other guy said it a long time ago, then I am wasting my time.

So I would much prefer that you and the others learn what you can from Nietzsche and any other source, but then communicate the understanding that you gained (assuming it to be relevant), because the person might not have really meant what you thought anyway. Just look at all of the interpretations of the Torah and the Bible.

If the intent is merely to form a Nietzsche fan club... emm.. well.. I'm afraid that wouldn't work for me. And I would no doubt end up merely arguing over precise terminology like a gaggle of Rabbi fussing over the Torah. What would really be the point? An example would be something like his "Order rises from Chaos" statement. The first time I heard that, I thought, "Emm... no. That would depend on the type of chaos it was. Order is certainly not going to arise from the center of the Sun." But of course, reading him and contemplating his intentions, he probably meant that it "often" does, or "eternally" does. If he meant either that it "always" does or even "eventually" does, I would have to hesitate on agreement. But then my second thought on hearing that statement was, "Well of course it rises from Chaos, what else could it rise from? Chaos rises from Order too. They are opposites."

When the Catholics ask me to peruse Aquinas, I told them that I would rather not. But they splashed his "proofs" up at me, more or less forcing it on me. So as predictable, I shredded them. They don't like me now.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Like the unity of self-valuings deflecting nothingness together while repelling each other because they are by definition of their not-self deflecting, separate. Only when people are 'merged' do they cease to repel the nothingness, and are drawn into tragic fate.
I understand the term, but I really don't like "repelling nothingness". Nothingness cannot be affected, else it would not be nothing. But then nothingness is an irrational concept to begin with, so I don't know that it matters. "Emptiness" would be a better term, I guess.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Indeed, but we are at this point slightly too small to really call it a group - not because 4 is necessarily too few, but because we do not all fully weigh in. This is besides business also a matter of a lack of a common ground.
True.

Fixed Cross wrote:
You'll have noticed my willingness to do the same - and none of us have held on to ego-issues at all.
That is critical because it is pointless to meet even on this Petite Sinai if not willing to "remove thy sandals".

Fixed Cross wrote:
We just lack clarity of shared purpose - we have not collectively identified 'the void' or the 'chaos' against which we exist as a group.
Yes, but we are getting there.

Fixed Cross wrote:
If you will be able to identify this chaos, this danger, as you perceive it in Nietzsche, you will strongly focus the groups attention. But you can not do this alone since he is not your field of expertise - we will need to present you with texts. I will work on that, if you will consider this kind of work.
"Danger in Nietzsche"??
I am not "perceiving danger in Nietzsche".
I only look for danger in the present and future... in YOUR understanding, regardless of where you might have been infected with it. I do the same with myself. Dead men tell no tales. It's their fan club you have to be worried about. RM is inherently self purifying (an "autoimmune system" to corruptive entropy). RM is not like Gold. It is more like liquid Stainless Steel. Corruption can get in, but it can stay for long. The group should be formed with that in mind as well - "self-cleaning/correcting".

Fixed Cross wrote:
"self-valuing + valuing in terms of self-value".
I seriosuly have no idea what that statement meant... haha.
But it does sound terribly self-referencing (an RM no-no due to Definitional Logic standards).

Fixed Cross wrote:
It describes not all that ever can be at any given time, but it describes what exists in time; coherence of substance in motion.
My concern has been that it isn't entirely doing that either.
It is not describing things like forms or quantities that might be of value, but not in themselves self-valuing.
In my PIV, that is in the category of "In-form-ation" - the things BEING valued, not anything necessarily self-valuing.

Beauty would be an example of something that does not self-value yet is something valued.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:14 pm

What the group members all have in common is their recognition of self-valuing as an essential concept. They each recognize that they are and always have been self-valuers. The objective of grouping is merely to enhance that attribute through cooperation. But it must be a cooperation that does not sacrifice the self-valuing attribute in the members for sake of the grouping. The individuals must still be individuals yet participating in something that is more ensuring their own ability to self-value.

To accomplish that it is essential to gain an understanding of the "self" and "valuing" so that self-valuing can be ensured to not be lost. The group must be an agreement that ensures no more sacrificing than necessary. And that is called "profitable trade".

So as to ensure that trade is profitable, one must take care to ensure an understanding of what is and isn't actually profitable. Again, sense the essence of self-valuing cannot be sacrificed, value gets determined by that which aids or protects the process of self-valuing both in general terms and particular to the individual.

Thus the purpose and process of the grouping is formed by the "value filtering" and exchanging of items or efforts that aid self-valuing. If it helps the self-valuing process more than it detracts from it, then it is "good value". If it hinders more than helps, then it is "bad value". If it does neither more than the other, it is of no current value.

1) understand self
2) understand valuing
3) trade/act profitably to ensure greater probability of continued self-valuing.

Such is the make of a molecule. And if formed properly, the make of a DNA molecule.

What do you do with a mass of DNA of which you are a sub-component?
You merely continue doing your "job" of self-valuing in the proper way and wait.
Life will continue the growth effort toward ensuring the process without you having to direct it.
"All people get all things"... of true and individual self-value.
.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:38 pm

James S Saint wrote:

I haven't been looking for flaws in Nietzsche and would rather not go looking for them. I can find flaw in anything and everyone. Proving why someone else is wrong about anything is not my job nor of interest to me. On Eugene's ILP thread, I warned him that I can find flaw in anything, but I would rather merely express my understanding and let him see how it fits or not. But as soon as he saw that it wasn't going the way he wanted (several times), he repelled into a total denial of every word I said. So eventually, I decided to show him what is wrong with the theory that he was promoting. He isn't a happy camper now.

The way I see it is that I am not talking to Nietzsche, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Aristotle or who ever anyone might be worshiping. It doesn't matter to me what THEY said. What matters is what the person with whom I am discussing an issue with understands, regardless of where they got the idea. If they believe something ONLY because some other guy said it a long time ago, then I am wasting my time.

So I would much prefer that you and the others learn what you can from Nietzsche and any other source, but then communicate the understanding that you gained (assuming it to be relevant), because the person might not have really meant what you thought anyway. Just look at all of the interpretations of the Torah and the Bible.

If the intent is merely to form a Nietzsche fan club... emm.. well.. I'm afraid that wouldn't work for me. And I would no doubt end up merely arguing over precise terminology like a gaggle of Rabbi fussing over the Torah. What would really be the point? An example would be something like his "Order rises from Chaos" statement. The first time I heard that, I thought, "Emm... no. That would depend on the type of chaos it was. Order is certainly not going to arise from the center of the Sun." But of course, reading him and contemplating his intentions, he probably meant that it "often" does, or "eternally" does. If he meant either that it "always" does or even "eventually" does, I would have to hesitate on agreement. But then my second thought on hearing that statement was, "Well of course it rises from Chaos, what else could it rise from? Chaos rises from Order too. They are opposites."

When the Catholics ask me to peruse Aquinas, I told them that I would rather not. But they splashed his "proofs" up at me, more or less forcing it on me. So as predictable, I shredded them. They don't like me now.
I don't worship Nietzsche. To think that someone would get angry at you for disproving something Nietzsche said is presumptuous and simply an error - I want to involve Nietzsche because it may help you come to terms with the other people on this forum. And, even though it is very possible that you are able to point out errors, this remains to be seen first. There is no obligation to go into Nietzsche - if you don't want it that is no problem - but please don't pretend like other people force you to make this choice. You can just say that you're not interested, and that's that.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
Like the unity of self-valuings deflecting nothingness together while repelling each other because they are by definition of their not-self deflecting, separate. Only when people are 'merged' do they cease to repel the nothingness, and are drawn into tragic fate.
I understand the term, but I really don't like "repelling nothingness". Nothingness cannot be affected, else it would not be nothing. But then nothingness is an irrational concept to begin with, so I don't know that it matters. "Emptiness" would be a better term, I guess.
I can see that - no-thingness then.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
Indeed, but we are at this point slightly too small to really call it a group - not because 4 is necessarily too few, but because we do not all fully weigh in. This is besides business also a matter of a lack of a common ground.
True.

Fixed Cross wrote:
You'll have noticed my willingness to do the same - and none of us have held on to ego-issues at all.
That is critical because it is pointless to meet even on this Petite Sinai if not willing to "remove thy sandals".
Indeed, all of us.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
We just lack clarity of shared purpose - we have not collectively identified 'the void' or the 'chaos' against which we exist as a group.
Yes, but we are getting there.
I hope so.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
If you will be able to identify this chaos, this danger, as you perceive it in Nietzsche, you will strongly focus the groups attention. But you can not do this alone since he is not your field of expertise - we will need to present you with texts. I will work on that, if you will consider this kind of work.
"Danger in Nietzsche"??
I am not "perceiving danger in Nietzsche".
I only look for danger in the present and future... in YOUR understanding, regardless of where you might have been infected with it.
I do the same with myself. Dead men tell no tales. It's their fan club you have to be worried about. RM is inherently self purifying (an "autoimmune system" to corruptive entropy). RM is not like Gold. It is more like liquid Stainless Steel. Corruption can get in, but it can stay for long. The group should be formed with that in mind as well - "self-cleaning/correcting".
Yes, that would be ideal.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
"self-valuing + valuing in terms of self-value".
I seriosuly have no idea what that statement meant... haha.
But it does sound terribly self-referencing (an RM no-no due to Definitional Logic standards).
What is not clear? It's the basic formula I've been talking about all along.
There is a self, which consists of setting itself as a standard, and by this standard it absorbs and repels value.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
It describes not all that ever can be at any given time, but it describes what exists in time; coherence of substance in motion.
My concern has been that it isn't entirely doing that either.
It is not describing things like forms or quantities that might be of value, but not in themselves self-valuing.
In my PIV, that is in the category of "In-form-ation" - the things BEING valued, not anything necessarily self-valuing.
If it isn't, it consists of self-valuings, like a mug consists of atoms.

Quote :
Beauty would be an example of something that does not self-value yet is something valued.
Beauty is not itself thing, it is a quality self-valuings ascribe to certain things.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)   

Back to top Go down
 
Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: The World-
Jump to: