You wish…
… but wrong.
That tells you something… presuming that I prefer theories to be faulty.
In my world, a correct theory is a thing of beauty.
Unfortunately, it is you who is wrong here.
In the end AO collapses under a basic flaw. No parameters for quality, no accounting for particulars: a theory that only works in general, where there is nothing actual.
And if someone is not childishly guided by only his passions, he knows to explicate the premises of his arguments, void of blind presumption:
You would do well to ask before you accuse.
… in everything you accuse.
One doesn’t “accuse” 1+1 of equaling 2.
Illustrative of the problem of AO: lack of relevant terms. (I mean relevance to life, not to AO.)
Are you going to defend your accusation or merely keep attempting to bicker and prattle?
aka: “Present your evidence”.
I do respect RM and your dedication to it. It has had my serious interest for some years.
Right now Im giving my sobrest assessment of its validity as I can compute from what I have learned.
That said, I esteem threads with theories in them for the reason that they never fail to provoke thought.
Ill get off your back and wish you the best.
For those very few actually interested (and ALL philosophers should be interested in ontological construction):
There can be many ontologies for the same reality, compatible or not. Of course if they conflict, at least one of them must be logically incoherent (possibly both). All philosophies, religions, and sciences are based upon specific, yet seldom defined, ontologies. AO and VO are not inherently incompatible. AO is merely far more inclusive of detailed definitions and the necessary mathematics. AO exposes the essential principles required for the existence of form, space, durability, longevity, growth, conflict, and change as such concerns may apply to physicality, sociology, psychology, and economics (as well as just about any subject of concern). One could justly call RM:AO a “professional philosophy”.
Could you give a definition of “self-harmony”?
Not simply for me as much as for a general understanding of RM AO.
I have to say I used to enjoy thinking with that concept.
I don’t use the term “Self-Harmony” much any more. It allowed for too much focus upon “self”, only half of the actual concern. Now I refer to “Anentropic Harmony” provided by “Anentropic Sheltering”. The focus should be on establishing harmony between every layer of the self and out to the rest of the universe.
Just a small clip out of the video (It runs a little fast):
It’s the concept, not so much the name. Naturally, VO is able to use this concept easily. I am tired of fighting over issues at the far ranges of abstract thought, we’ll never get to the point that Kant envisioned, where we can test our innate premises under logical conditions, except by these two methods, which are so different, as at least VO would indeed prescribe; what affectance is in RM as I understand it corresponds to difference as I use the term. I would not claim that it corresponds absolutely, but it does intuitively and functionally.
Let’s say for a moment that self-valuing corresponds to anentropy. Valuing is being-affected - what one values, negatively and positively, means how one is being affected in general, and incorporating of values requires affecting. I would not go so far as to equate the two.
Self-valuing is amounted to by affecting the world in such a way that crucial values are attained. What these values are depends entirely on the environment, out of which any entity is born. A star is born out of an environment of hydrogen clouds, a man out of a humid atmosphere on a carbon rich soil, both are anentropic instances that hold themselves together because they coexist with the configuration of elements from which they seemingly self-generated.
A self is generated by nothing else than the precise circumstances in which it takes place. A man is nothing but the filling in of the potential that was present in that exact Relativistic time-space locus of sufficient affectance from and upon the right qualities. Hence also astrology, why it works so well as a clock where specific arrangements of possibilities are indicated. The solar system set against the rest of the visible universe provides a mapping that, when studied in detail, reveals as much as looking inward into our cells.
As above, so below.
Though that’s far from being an exact equation.
Please refute or confirm these statements.
A thought generates out of the affectance in the brain, which is fed by neural affectance, which is fed by exterior and internal affectances, etc.
A thought generates out of the valuing of the mind, which is fed by the values composing its environment.
A value generates out of the inward affectance of a self-valuing as corresponding to the affectance of the outside world upon the self-valuing.
Affectance generates of the absolute anentropy of the impossibility of non-being, i.e. out of the self-valuing of possibility against its impotent negation.
The brain/mind dichotomy is a persistent one. I tend to believe in the functioning of other organs as minds, or part of a great subconscious mind, of which the brain is the spearhead but not the sole creator. Thoughts can originate in the liver, because the processes in the liver are both vital and terribly subtle, and translate easily into the arrangements of neural cells discharging that reflect thoughts.
A thought is not itself a neural process, it’s rather the substance of life that such a process sustains. Life itself, the moment, is elusive to physical descriptions.
Self-valuing is a term that relies on having the physicality of things as totally subservient to the forces of attraction and repulsion that bind them. “Stuff” is no longer considered, only tends, patterns of becoming. This is close to the concept of will, except it does pertain to substances. The substances aren’t physical anymore though, they are processes that run through a physical environment. This environment is the result of near infinite processes running through each other. Ultimately the first substance seems to be two irreconcilable processes intertwined.
Perhaps a little more of the video was needed. I updated that vid-clip post to more display the abstract point/principle involved.
Self-valuing is “anti-entropy”, at best encouraging anentropy by opposing entropy and at worst (quite common) encourages uncompassionate self-focus, blind lusting, and greed. Anentropy is the exact balance between self-valuing and selfless-valuing.
Anentropy is thus behaving in such a way that the future self will thrive, no?
Anentropy is the angel servant of MIJOT, the highest possible purpose in life.
Plot the level of joy in your life minute by minute since the time you were born. The “Integral of Joy Over Time”, IJOT, is the area under that curve. The longer you live and the more joyous you are, the higher IJOT rating you have acquired. MIJOT, “Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time”, is the maximum joy accumulation possible through the maximum life span possible (aka “Eternal Joy”).
Yeah, I would call that “thriving”.
It is extremely Jewish. You should love it (“if and when…”).