Relativity Logic

There is a need to replace the term value ontology. The emphasis needs to be on the instrument of valuing, the ontological core, the self-valuing. The valuer, the valuing (as in the being), and on the fact that a specific logic is required to ontologize with these terms.

Something can be said for Valuer Logic - The logic based on the principle of a valuer, analogous to the physics based on the principle of a quantum (of valuing).

A quantum of valuing is a valuer. The logic describing the interconnectivity of valuers reflects the physics of quanta. The logical operations reflect the causality of relativity - i.e. nonlinear space time curvature rather than chains of action and reaction.

VL does not concern itself with the moments in which collisions become formal causes, but rather with the structural property of an environment to attract causes and effects of such and such nature.

"Fundamental Matter", the affectance sea, Higgs field, is contextualized into the logical discourse as a valency-net, a web of relations which exist only in terms generated by its users - and is only conceptualizable as a derivative of a primordial activity, "relating", which ultimately implies a inequality.

The primary inequality is between being and not-being.
The secondary inequality is between being-this and that-being.

The formula for every relating must consist of three elements. A relator, a related and a relation.

The primary relates to the secondary in terms that will reflect not-being in a certain way: not being-this, not that-being, etc.
A relation is thus a location for values. Values exist as relations, and determine beings to one another. Values are "contextual appearances"- contrasted with "beings", whose natures are undisclosed except through time, recognizable as "behavior".

Someones structural behavior is his soul, his appearance to himself and others is his personality. The appearance creates the context for the soul, but is not the only decisive factor.

The decisive factor is read a posteriori, in an abstraction of the overall behavior. "The will". The soul is the body of the will, and the body is the body of the soul.  The will operates through drawing a certain behavior out of a given body.

It's mechanisms are in part simply consequences of its place in the Whole (everything that directly and indirectly affects him) and in part the type of operations that makes the whole possible - valuing-interpreting, being-subject, resisting.

Change is the effect of resistance as matter is the effect of the speed of light.

This made me think of a way to describe "ascending to ones higher self" less arcanely -
to reflect ones overall-behavior in ones present actions.

I do not mean "sitting on the couch and watching tv all day" but rather "enacting such and such a contrast/conflict". For overall, most lives are marked by a certain irredeemable difference between value and necessity. To embrace this difference seems ironic, as it seems like it relativizes the valuing and surrenders to necessity. But that is a formula for death. And indeed, the search for a higher self often leads to death of the soul - to lethargy.

Another way to embrace the difference is to use it to eternalize ones valuing of the lacked thing - to create an 'ode' to that which is not - in order that it exists in the mind of the world.

Ascesis, along with sadomasochism, is another way to 'own the difference between what one wants and what one can have'.

The most worthy way of embracing the difference is the pure, emotionless reflection on it, resulting in what can be called "military planning". I find that the highest form of praise to life is a systematic construction of means of dominion.

Life itself, that which is praised, flows gratefully into such vessels.

No, I will stick to value ontology. I've come to love the word.

I use the term value because I want to employ our most direct intuitions about the world, to work in unision with the powerful framework of established knowledge which the scientists have gathered.

Language guides us, its possibilities are a vast sea of potential, and we steer our course through it. But no none has ever mapped this full sea of language.
In this ocean is one island. A place where the ocean knows itself by seeing that which is different from it – something enclosed in the ocean, but not moving with its tides.
More than half dead, beaten by vast currents of overpowering value-systems colliding in "me", I stranded on this island and from that day on, the oceans could be navigated, charted, mastered.

The human mind is such an ocean – always in turmoil and never an equal thought process. Colliding streams of consciousness, waves of emotion, never an anchor.
Always things are registered and always a reaction forms. The only constant seems change.

But change from what? Is there a standard? Is there a measure of things? And who measures it – who senses it and responds to it accordingly? What is this core of the surf, the depths, the storm and the silent seas? Always a “yes this” and a “not that”. An appraiser.

“Judgment” – always the “correct measure”. But what is this correctness but historical precedent? It is a selection. Nature selects herself for herself, and she is doing so right now in your thoughts. What is the value of this? Does it attract or repel? This question is answered instantly by an atomic core. It can take years in a human mind. But the question is equal: in this encounter, how do I maximize my harmonic momentum?

Apart from the "not that" there is also "no that." "not that" is respectful, violent but not lethal. "No that" is the most violent thing nature has.

You mean as in "no, that?"