A lot of James’ posts here
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=191227&p=2733200&hilit=natural+world+ashes#p2629095
and check this out
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t6 … onal-logic
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 … everything
Hey thanks barbarianhorde. Is the board referenced in that first post still up and running?
B. Horde is on a brief hiatus from ILP at the moment because he’s hosting an international summit meeting on Value Ontology… so I’ll be taking his calls.
To answer your question, I have no idea, because two paragraphs into those threads and I’m totally lost. None of it makes any sense to me, but I do know the original canon of the VO scrolls can be found at beforethelight.
Hey man no unfortunately the dude that hosted it (old poster here by the name of Old Gobbo, otherwise a pretty reliable fellow) got into a hissy fit with one of my philosopher-hoplites and deleted the board.
Anyone heard of Gobbo here?
Did the space-aliens finally decide to take him to Zaroc to impregnate their wives?
Yeah thanks Promethean. You’ve earned a cup of coffee.
So one issue Ive had all along with RM is:
it says, being = affectance.
Because a thing can not be said to be, when it doesn’t affect another thing.
However, there is a kind of thing missing here namely: if being is affectance, being should also provide for the power to be affected. Otherwise there could be no affecting.
So how is that provided for in RM:AO?
This is why I prefer VO - valuing-in-ones-terms is both being affected and affecting.
Affecting IS the power itself, isn’t it? It is supposed to be “the potential-to-affect, PtA” being the state of the universe at any chosen point but changing due to that potential coming to fruition. The ongoing situation is then constant “Affect-on-Affect” (I guess that would be “AoA” as the actuated, actual universe in action that James called “Affectance”).
It seems that his proposition is exactly what you say is the need. The “power” is the PtA actuating - affecting. And what it is affecting is other surrounding PtA which in turn affects more surrounding PtA. Then the proposition is that the entirety of the universe is nothing but that endless sequence saturating all space.
Yeah but thats not what I have problems with.
If you can, specifically, without suggesting there is an inference, but actually making it, what is the power to be affected?
Can you see how this is a different or at least complicating concern wrt affecting?
In any case, the difference, the “remainder” of being affected and affecting, is inertia - which is the standard definition of mass.
So its a legitimate concern, one which should prove fruitful to resolve.
I don’t understand the question. What “power to be affected”?
That doesn’t sound like what he was trying to say about inertia. He says that inertia is the end result of maximal affecting at one location (“high density”). His argument is that if a point in space is already being maximally affected, that point cannot instantly move because any change of movement would constitute yet another change beyond maximum. The end result of that situation is that whatever is attempting to move that point in space, or that “particle”, must wait. That forced-to-wait effect, we call “inertia” or “mass”.
I can’t tell if that is what you were talking about.