AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:38 am

Jakob wrote: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.


What does it mean for a thing to be real?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Postby encode_decode » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:45 pm

Jakob wrote:AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.

VO (Value Ontology, or more accurately, self-valuing logic), holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to be consistently responsive in consistent terms.

To the thorough mind it will become instantly clear how subtle the difference between these positions is, and to the thoroughest mind, it will become clear that this difference points to a fundamental issue with cognition.

Both theories are, Ive found I need to stipulate, disciplines for the mind. They offer us disciplines that allow us to be consistent in what we say, about both existence in general and its particular instances.

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?
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:42 pm

encode_decode wrote: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.

A Contemporary philosophy

Tethered by reality;
    There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
    There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
    There is Life.
    There is the adversary to every life.
    And there is You.. an instance of life.
The rest is just noise

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

Don't sweat the Noise..

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.

The inherent purpose in all living things is to maintain and protect their inner harmony. Man learned that in order to do such requires that he obtain and maintain the harmony surrounding him. And from there, all of the insane efforts of the history of homosapiens sprang forth as he attempts threats and false hopes in an effort to control all things.

All joy is caused by an inner perception of progress toward that harmony and hope (thus the continual effort). Such is the very make of the deepest devoted love, survival, and that known as "Heaven". If you are looking for something to seek that has true meaning, seek that harmony both within and around you. It will be a full time occupation, don't worry about that. The Buddhists call it spiritual enlightenment, "bliss". But it is not a stagnate thing as many have been led to believe. Its momentum is what keeps and maintains it. Try it and you will see. Everything else you try will just be more noise upon yourself and others.


Finding the Balance – remaining stable

Self-harmony

Jun 19, 2012
Self-harmony is the ideal architecture within, without which there is no "I". That architecture involves both rules of behavior as well as the behavior itself. To establish more or better Self-harmony, it helps to get a measure of where you stand with respect to the ideal so that improvement direction can be discerned.

How a person treats his environment, the people and things immediately around him, is a reflection of how he is treating himself inside. If he disrespects others, interrupts them while they are talking, disrespects their space or possessions, or quickly judges or ignores them, he is doing that same thing within himself to various concerns, ideas, and parts of his own mind. If he is disorganized, dirty, careless with his own possessions, he is the same way with his thoughts. Thus simply look around and see how you are treating your immediate environment so as to get a measure of what is going on inside your own mind. You are only as harmonious within as how harmonious you are with your environment (given the chance to be).

Once you have an idea of where you stand with harmonizing your environment and being in harmony with it, you can probably quickly see how to improve it.

The greater influence upon the inside of you comes from the outside of you. Surround yourself with beauty and you can probably feel it within and will tend to begin being it, behaving in harmony with what you perceive.
.
.
.

There is no end to it. And there is no beginning, save from wherever you are.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:01 am

JSS wrote:How a person treats his environment, the people and things immediately around him, is a reflection of how he is treating himself inside. If he disrespects others, interrupts them while they are talking, disrespects their space or possessions, or quickly judges or ignores them, he is doing that same thing within himself to various concerns, ideas, and parts of his own mind. If he is disorganized, dirty, careless with his own possessions, he is the same way with his thoughts. Thus simply look around and see how you are treating your immediate environment so as to get a measure of what is going on inside your own mind. You are only as harmonious within as how harmonious you are with your environment (given the chance to be).


So if you kill a pig this means you are killing something within yourself?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Postby encode_decode » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:24 pm

      Jakob?
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1215
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

      Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

      Postby Jakob » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:00 pm

      I missed this reply. Sorry encode.

      encode_decode wrote:
      Jakob wrote:AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.

      VO (Value Ontology, or more accurately, self-valuing logic), holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to be consistently responsive in consistent terms.

      To the thorough mind it will become instantly clear how subtle the difference between these positions is, and to the thoroughest mind, it will become clear that this difference points to a fundamental issue with cognition.

      Both theories are, Ive found I need to stipulate, disciplines for the mind. They offer us disciplines that allow us to be consistent in what we say, about both existence in general and its particular instances.

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

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

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

      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.

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

      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.

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

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

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

      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.
      Image
      For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
      User avatar
      Jakob
      ILP Legend
       
      Posts: 7140
      Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
      Location: look at my suit

      Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

      Postby encode_decode » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:46 pm

      Jakob wrote:I missed this reply. Sorry encode.

      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.

      Jakob wrote:
      encode_decode wrote:
      Jakob wrote:AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.

      VO (Value Ontology, or more accurately, self-valuing logic), holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to be consistently responsive in consistent terms.

      To the thorough mind it will become instantly clear how subtle the difference between these positions is, and to the thoroughest mind, it will become clear that this difference points to a fundamental issue with cognition.

      Both theories are, Ive found I need to stipulate, disciplines for the mind. They offer us disciplines that allow us to be consistent in what we say, about both existence in general and its particular instances.

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

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

      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 :)
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1215
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

      Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

      Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:43 pm

      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
       
      Posts: 166
      Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

      Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

      Postby encode_decode » Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:45 pm

        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.

        obsrvr524 wrote: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?

        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.

        :D
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1215
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:01 pm

        Yes. Thank you. I just saw that book link the other day and loved the preview. I'll definitely be getting that book.

        From decades ago, many things James' posted intrigued me. One of them was that he seemed to be the deconstructionist's deconstructionist. He was critical of everything, every perspective, every opinion, every theory. And that got everyone on his case, calling him every kind of name. He didn't seem to care but it got him banned and deleted a lot. I suspect he saw it more as a test and judgement of them than of him. I started suspected that when I observed how often a board would close down shortly after banning him. I saw him debating the admin here years ago, before I got sidetracked, and was amazed to come back to see how long he lasted here. And that the board is still here.

        One of the efforts he questioned was whether the attempt to seek truth was necessarily wise. He pointed out that the real truth might be that the real truth is best not known. His justification for that thought was a bit disturbing and stuck with me. That is why I am curious to see where he took the whole thing and how much he was willing to reveal. I would expect him to be saying somewhere that such-and-such is the best thing to believe for such-and-such reason. He seemed to always have a reason for everything and if there wasn't one, he wouldn't hesitate to create one.

        I am going to be trying to download his posts for a study. He seemed to have unloaded a great deal onto this board on a number of topics, although he also seemed to have backed off and avoided of few previously troublesome topics such as politics and surveillance techniques. So I'll have to see. Its going to take quite a long time. There is a lot here and I don't have a lot of free time to devote to it. The book will probably help.
        obsrvr524
         
        Posts: 166
        Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:16 pm

        It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
        ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

        THE HORNED ONE
        User avatar
        barbarianhorde
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 2453
        Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:08 am


        Hey thanks barbarianhorde. Is the board referenced in that first post still up and running?

        Fixed Cross wrote:Ok also this

        Image<br /><br />This is not only an issue for Science to realize, but all of society. Positive Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is a higher ability (“potential”) to affect or produce effect...
        obsrvr524
         
        Posts: 166
        Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby promethean75 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:59 pm

        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.
        promethean75
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1570
        Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:00 pm

        obsrvr524 wrote:Hey thanks barbarianhorde. Is the board referenced in that first post still up and running?

        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?
        It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
        ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

        THE HORNED ONE
        User avatar
        barbarianhorde
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 2453
        Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:06 pm

        promethean75 wrote: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.

        Yeah thanks Promethean. You've earned a cup of coffee.
        It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
        ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

        THE HORNED ONE
        User avatar
        barbarianhorde
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 2453
        Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby barbarianhorde » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:07 pm

        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.
        It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
        ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

        THE HORNED ONE
        User avatar
        barbarianhorde
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 2453
        Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:18 pm

        barbarianhorde wrote: 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?

        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.
        obsrvr524
         
        Posts: 166
        Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:47 pm

        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.
        It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
        ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

        THE HORNED ONE
        User avatar
        barbarianhorde
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 2453
        Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

        Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

        Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:10 pm

        barbarianhorde wrote: what is the power to be affected?

        I don't understand the question. What "power to be affected"?

        barbarianhorde wrote:In any case, the difference, the "remainder" of being affected and affecting, is inertia - which is the standard definition of mass.

        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".
        James S Saint » Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:55 pm wrote:But because such adding of affects can never reach infinite affect, occasionally affects must wait while other affects pass. That bit of waiting, like a traffic jam, causes others to have to wait. And what we call inertia is born, the reluctance to change or be affected. That is the first sign of mass and matter because unlike the surrounding ocean, such spots delay the passing turbulence and create spots in space that do not move so freely. These are the first "particles" and formed at the most fundamental level of anything that could be said to exist.
        James S Saint » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:43 am wrote:matter is no more than a process of collective changing at such a speed, that it cannot be pushed to change faster and thus has "inertia" (the reluctance to change).

        I can't tell if that is what you were talking about.
        obsrvr524
         
        Posts: 166
        Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

        Previous

        Return to Philosophy



        Who is online

        Users browsing this forum: No registered users