The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

If you are trying to speak in metaphor, simile, analogy, or just general poetry, twists and nuance expressions are good. But if you want to convey a philosophic meaning and you use nonstandard definitions without ensuring that you are understood, you merely confuse the reader and often yourself. The reader believes that you are wrong in what you meant to say, because he reads a different meaning into it than you intended. The word “value” already has a meaning. Why are you changing it into something else?

If your intent is to be a nihilist and confuse the language so as to disrupt and destroy society, then yeah, screwing with the meanings of the words is one way; “good means bad”, “right means wrong”, “left means right”, “woman means man”, “red means mauve”, “value means innate characteristic”, and so on. Why not allow some clocks to run backwards from standard? Why not have some meters longer than others? If you want to appear wrong, or simply spread irrationality around for fun, then refuse any standards in communication. Why else pretend to be speaking English (like Prism)? They call it “Babylon”.

Why do you think there are so very many sects within each religion? They didn’t use lexicons to ensure that everyone understood what they really meant by what they said. Imagine all of the fuss that would never have risen if they had bothered to have an original lexicon in the back of each book.

That’s “why”.

No. The word “affectance” had a meaning before I adopted it. But that meaning was used merely by psychologists when referring to subtle affects upon infants. Physics had no word for what I was expressing. So I extended that exact same meaning so as to speak of ALL subtle affects upon anything. I didn’t change the word as much as expanded its use. When speaking to a psychologist, I still mean the same thing as he meant prior - “subtle affects”. And when speaking to an ontologist, it is affects-upon-affects. When speaking to a physicist, I translate it into the subtle affects of “Ultra-minuscule electromagnetic radiation”. Of course, when I first began, I didn’t know that my affects-upon-affects was the same thing as ultra-minuscule EMR. I had to logically prove that later.

So my use of the language is a different kind of issue. I clarify, solidify, and expand the standard, not disrupt or destroy it. That is the Vishnu/ Krishna/ Christ way (“Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce…”).

Not as much as you have been led to believe. There is a war currently going on. A war of persuassion and remolding of Man. A part of that war is convincing children that old is wrong and must be destroyed (including the languages) and change is good (although not mention to what it is to change … because that would be bad).

How are you going to communicate that theology if the words are scrambled? And if the words are scrambled, how do you even know if you got it right? Don’t you still need to communicate to others for verification if nothing else?

WHAT??? After all of that?
:laughing:

Yes, and they all lead to the same “road to the abyss” by gradually modifying the language into self-referential, very pliable, fantasies preached as core science and truth. Solipsists and “subjectivists” are nihilists, but not everyone realizes what road they are on and what train they are fueling. Most people are the product of the propaganda, not actually having minds of their own, but not realizing it.

No, I think I zeroed in pretty well on your “critical point”. You’re trying to force current views on me as absolutes beyond which I’m not, in your estimation, allowed to argue. You’re not alone, Prism; lots of folks try to trap others in the status quo box. It scores points [superficially, not actually] and makes it easier for one to advance his own agenda unencumbered if you can force the other guy to argue in ways that profit you in the argument. Actually, this is why I typically don’t waste time arguing with atheists–the atheist position is circular: “The rule for debate is that the only things that are real are those in time and space. Now come, tell me all about your God.” If you can stack the deck by making others adhere to your epistemic rules, you’ll always win. It’s a human thing; I’m sure I do it too, though try to stay aware and avoid.

Holding to rigorous philosophical standards are fine when discussing philosophy. Maybe you didn’t notice this is the “Religion and Spirituality” section? Please, stop trying to force unnecessary rules on the discussion. Keeps it more real, right?

And an atheist will default to no God. So what?

I’ve spent many years debating fellow theists on theological points, long enough to see the very common “smoke and mirrors” approach used to “refute” truths they’re uncomfortable facing. In fact, as the spiritual mechanics of truth was developing I began to look for just the sort of folks who displayed the highest tendencies to respond to truth in this way and entered debates to test the theory in practice. Recognizing by your own tendencies that you were a likely candidate (the principles apply to all people but some are more predisposed than others) I placed this reference in my last post:

…so if the opportunity presented itself I could offer a demonstration of the principles at work. As expected, you participated. Let me explain.

The natural enmity produced in cognition between micro-level truth and falsity can be verified in how people respond to truths they don’t want to “hear”. Falsification at certain levels produces discord in response to true prescriptive propositions. These incidents are relatively uncomplicated to predict, we recognize them intuitively as evidenced by some of the clichés we use, e.g., “The truth hurts, doesn’t it?”. Like many I’ve tested in the past, you followed a predictable path in reaction to the straightforward proof I provided that your proposal that God is an impossibility is demonstrably false.

You skirted answering the proof offered because falsity in sufficient quantity exists in the soul to produce the f[1]f[/i] union. This union produces the strongest responses to propositional truth—as in your scramble to push the misleading and incorrect argumentum ad populum fallacy at the evidence provided in order to wriggle out from under the pressure imposed by the truth of rebuttal. You then added the padding of several more sentences of drivel to your response—a common attempt to remove focus from an inability to rebut by drowning [hiding] the topic in a sea of linguistic ambiguity. We sometimes feel if we throw enough words at our opponents the effect will be to wash away focus on the issue with excess verbiage.

Your charge of argumentum ad populum is notably false because my point that God is among the most objectively discussed topics on earth is not an appeal to its popularity as proof, it’s a simple, irrefutable fact demonstrating that the concept “God” contains objectively accessed information, whereas impossibilities (as was amply demonstrated) do not. Your trying to mask this as an appeal to the popularity of the concept is precisely the sort of response falsification would produce in an agent occupying a reality in which human cognition and the beliefs and behaviours that follow are driven predominantly by value inherent in the essence of things.

I’m not singling you out Prismatic. The principles of a falsified essence holds equally true for anyone who stubbornly holds falsehood as truth. We all suffer from the same cognitively debilitating effect of falsification. It hampers descriptive understanding and overpowers rationality in intellectual processing of prescriptive matters. It also affords a degree of predictability in observation of moral and ethical reactions, responses and the behaviours that follow from them.

When the principles laid out in the op are put into theoretical operation the content of certain kinds of responses can be predicted, as for example your parting commentary:

The evidence speaks for itself.


  1. i ↩︎

Of course it did…just as the words I use have various meanings. You adapted the word to your usage. So do I adapt words to my usage. This isn’t to me an important issue James. If you or others find my use of terms cumbersome and are unable or unwilling to overcome juggling different meanings for common words [though how one would get along in the world with this problem given the multiple meanings common to most words would be puzzling], there’s not much I can do about it. I’m more interested in hearing constructive criticism. I appreciate that you’ve challenged me to show how I can justify uniting the meanings of value-force/energy. This certainly needs work, will have to delve further into study to try to clarify my thoughts and meet the challenge.

  • Value = assigned worth relating to a desire
  • Value = innate virtue of objects
  • Value = force/energy

These are 3 very different concepts for merely one word.

It can validly be said that the worth assigned to objects is effectively a force within the mind or in society, thus allowing for a union of the concepts within that limited scope. But where there is no mind involved, there can be no assigned worth and thus the three concepts remain very distinct and a single word should not be used for all 3.

Fixed Cross has been promoting his “Value Ontology” founded on the idea that all objects exist solely because of the virtue of being “self-valuing”. Typically the first comment everyone makes when hearing the theory is that “objects do not assign value so there can be no self-valuing”. He tried to explain that he doesn’t intend the word to be used in that mind-only way, but as a more philosophical, universal way. This has been going on for years and still happens.

His intent is that of a politician or social engineer, persuading emotional affect by substantiating the concept of self concern over concern for others (Judaist over Christian). He appropriately professes to be Nietzschean. But his efforts are thwarted by the fact that he is altering a word’s meaning, not merely expanding its use. The first issue is to at least get the language clearly what others accept. The more serious challenge in propagating his intent would come well after he managed to get far beyond where he has already been stumped.

Your intent appears to be similar (although perhaps less Nietzschean) and will suffer the same thwarted propagation.

More influential people have promoted a similar skewing of the language (and for identical reasons) such as to alter the meaning of “reality” from meaning “objective or absolute existence” into meaning “relative perception of existence” (aka “God doesn’t exist", “Truth is whatever you believe it to be”, "Magick is real”), utilizing Einstein’s Relativity Ontology (although already proven to be limited and thus not true to reality). Such opens the gate for word games to be used in social-engineering, manipulating people into targeted conflicts and wars.

^^^— “constructive criticism”.

:laughing:
I’m going to have to remember that phrase, “sea of linguistic ambiguity” - how perfectly appropriate. =D>

Again you missed the point.
Earlier you condemned my references as restricted to Wiki and SEP re the question of ‘What is Truth’.
I replied my sources re What is Truth is not restricted to Wiki and SEP but critically “from other philosophical sources on the term ‘truth’.” It is not convenient for me to refer you to a Bibliography specifically to ‘what is truth’ thus my quick reference to Wiki and SEP.

Btw, have you done an extensive research [literature review] on ‘what is truth’ from the philosophical database [Western, Eastern, etc.]?
If you have not done that what sort of credibility can you claim on the topic of ‘truth’ as in your OP?

Note I am not forcing the rule at all.

I had claimed all truth are conditioned to their specific Framework and System, e.g. Science has its Scientific Method and System, so thus Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Legal, etc.
Legal truths cannot be Scientific truths per se and vice-versa.

What is critical is one must be aware of the Framework and System one is relying on to declare one’s truth.
Thus if you claim God exists, then you have to qualify what Framework and System you are using, e.g. empirical, reason, empirical-rational, theological, philosophical or your own. For each Framework and System, one has to stick to its requirements.

The point is the basis for God is SOLELY psychological and thus when theists attempt to squeeze this psychological based inference into other Frameworks, there are holes and a mess. It is like trying to force square pegs to fit into round holes.

Yes, this is the “Religion and Spirituality” section, BUT within a Philosophy Forum.

When theists bring in their god into the argument, it goes nowhere because god is groundless and illusory.

As for non-theists, they will have to justify whatever claims they made within the requirements of the specific Framework and System involved. If a non-theist make a scientific claim then they must bring scientific proofs, if legal as in a murder case -then evidence, etc.

You have not shown you have a good grounding on ‘what is truth’ philosophically, that is why I did not address your proofs at all.
I had claim your OP is misplaced and will be going no where.

Your claim of “smokes and mirror” with theists and others do not apply to me.
My approach is based on proper evidence and sound arguments and very direct which are open to criticisms.

Not sure of your point here.

You mean the evidence I provided speaks for the fact that the idea of God arose out of psychological factors in the brain/mind. Thus God do not exists as real within an empirical-rational reality?

Btw, I am not interested in your OP, The “Spiritual Mechanics” of Truth because it makes no sense philosophically. This was why I avoided your subsequent response earlier. I think it would be more effective [philosophically] to establish ‘what is truth’ first.


  1. i ↩︎

Anomaly, you have to forgive Prism, he can’t understand “ontology and epistemology” so he says, “Framework and System”. And apparently he wants people to believe that “truth” is just whatever agrees with the reigning ontology and epistemology. There is no standard for which these ontologies must conform because that would imply a single Reality above the preachings of Man, a “God”. And he, being entirely antisemitic, loaths the thought of God. He believes in “making knowledge” rather than “discovering knowledge” (the over feminized new-age culture).

The above is another evidence why I insist your philosophical knowledge is very shallow and narrow. Don’t blame me for saying such truths when you post the above condescending views.

The above ontology is not equivalent to my concept of ‘Framework and System’.
The point is to deal with ‘ontology’ and ‘epistemology’ there is a need to start with a Framework and System’ before arriving at any truths re ‘ontology’ and ‘epistemology.’

Scientific Knowledge [different from ontology] will need its own ‘Framework and System’ i.e. the Scientific Method, its assumptions, limitations, principles, consensus process, peer reviews, etc.
The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which is a different field in philosophy from Metaphysics and epistemology will require its specific ‘Framework and System.’
ALL fields of knowledge and truths will require its ‘Framework and System’ this is how we have the typical ‘Philosophy of [anything]’ where one must understand the fundamental ‘Framework and System’ of that philosophy.

I suggest you go back to start from kindergarten Philosophy and progress from there, then only if you can graduate, to critique my philosophical points.

It is because theists are ignorant and do not have a map of the inherent Framework and Systems of theism that they missed the fundamental element of theism, i.e. the critical psychological impulses ['zombie parasite] that drive them to theism.

Then you are probably using the wrong meaning for “Framework and System”. Try looking up “epistemology” this time, see if that better fits what you mean. If not, you really need to define your unique language.

Epistemology refer to the Philosophy of Knowledge.

To establish what is knowledge there is a need for a Framework and System.

Note I have already explained in my earlier post by what is meant by Framework and System.
Here again,

Without the necessary scientific Framework and System, there is no scientific knowledge.
Why a particular knowledge is called scientific is because it complies with all the requirements of the scientific framework and system, mainly the Scientific Method, peer review and the default assumptions, the specific assumptions of the theory, etc.

Knowledge that claim to be scientific but do not comply with the scientific Framework and System are called pseudo-scientific knowledge.

We well know what “epistemology” means. But you don’t know what “Philosophy of Knowledge” means, so you probably should look more into it.

And no, you have never “explained what you mean by Framework and System”. You do not understand what “explain” means. You merely give the specific example that you want to preach about, ignoring the meaning of your words or any actual explanations and definitions. You have invented your own grammar and language.

Even after looking up “ontology”, you still have no idea what it means, nor “epistemology”. You make this obvious by the way you try to substitute your own version of those words so as to twist meanings toward what you want people to believe.

And why are you capitalizing “Framework and System”?

Well, of course no one ever will accuse me of being among the influential, but I’m taking the position that the unorthodox use of language is only “skewing” from a certain perspective. I seem to recall you taking issue with me in another thread when I stated that everyone has a different reality, but suspect you didn’t grasp what I meant. Individual realities are created by subjectivity; but all individual realities draw from a single, overarching reality/existence. This is a realist, not idealist, position. We each have our own subjective view of reality which creates the reality [worldview] we operate within. Call this a sub-reality. One sub-reality touches many others, and others touch the one, and all are changed to some extent, small or large, in the touching and having been touched. This does not stand against the idea of a single, objective reality because each sub-reality can only ever participate in the one, single, objective reality to form its own.

We have x number of words to use to signify concepts. I don’t use words to "alter the meaning of “reality” from meaning “objective or absolute existence” into meaning “relative perception of existence” and I expect neither does anyone else who constructs a serious, rational worldview. There are more concepts and ideas than there are words to signify them. At the end of the day, minds will either try to grasp what is being said within the context of the user’s explanation or stop at the usage, draw a line in the sand and use refuse to enter in. Nothing I or anyone else can do about that. Lord knows I’ve been on the refusing side enough times.

Haven’t read him. Sounds initially interesting, depending on how he defines terms. I’ll have to look his stuff up.

This is the subjective value intellectual beings place on their views of others, states of affairs, relationships, etc. This value exists independently of the absolute value-states of individual’s physical components, but is highly correlational to one’s prescriptive value state.

“Objects” don’t have virtue, only intellectual beings do.

This is the tough one because it’s most abstract and furthest from accepted word meanings. I only came to this conclusion in the last year or so. In process of peeling back layers trying to simplify and find common denominators I came to value as a component or attribute of force/energy. Didn’t seem complete, and in peeling back one more layer came to believe energy-power-dynamism-force are just words hiding, or standing in for, a single term, value. This goes against the grain of definition and imo justifies your and others’ complaints of epistemic speciousness–for this one usage.

But this is my worldview and I’m stickin’ with it. At least until something convinces me to change it. I reserve the right to alter my worldview at any time without notice.

That is an abuse, an incorrect use, of the word “reality”. The word “reality” refers ONLY to that which is objective, not subjective. You have substituted “my perspective” with “my reality”, forming a fictitious entity posing as a real entity (“my reality”).

Yes, the “subjective views of reality” (not the “individual realities”) create the belief system within which we operate. They do not create the reality, merely a part of that overall reality, the beliefs part. You are substituting subjective belief for reality.

Ask why you are calling it “reality” at all. Subjective views are NOT reality. Why are you trying to “force” the alteration of that particular word? Your change opens the gate to language manipulated magic trickery (screwing with heads to create conflict). Why empower the Devil?

You just did. When you refer to a subjective view as a reality, you imply that reality is nothing more than a subjective view, which is objectively false and an attempt to redefine what the word “reality” means.

“Subjective view” or “individual perspective” works fine. There is no valid need to redefine an existing word into an insidious tool.

And still appear to be, but yes, there is something that you can do about that. Ask yourself WHY YOU are insisting on, forcing, redefining that particular word.

There is a possibly confusing use of the word “value” perhaps getting in the way of rationality here. The word “value” is also used to refer to the measure of a state or condition; e.g. the value of the variable, the meter reading value.

To remove confusion, I would suggest using “measure” or “condition” instead of “value”. Then you would be talking about “the force of its measure” or “its potential”. And that would play coherently into physics.

It is your petulance concerning the right to change the language that others use … and toward one specific direction that I am certain you have not investigated. Again, ask WHY change those particular words in that particular direction? And why YOU? Why fight that battle? Who does it serve? Is changing the language a hidden desire of yours? Is that your goal? What is your real goal?

Carving up truth—a universal quality that pertains to every and any topic universally to fit it into separate, isolated niches is just relativism. The interesting thing to me is not that folks think in ways the lead to this, but why they do. And this leads into the next response….

Indeed. And as noted earlier, you’re providing an excellent opportunity to demonstrate my framework. Thank you Prismatic.

No. I mean the evidence your posts so enthusiastically provide that authenticates the principles laid out in the op.

That was apparent to me with your first post, my friend. But you’re my case study now, so I’ll humor you.

…said the guy trying to define the parameters by which the op was allowed to be relevant to ensure he could win his arguments. Please note my earlier reference to the common circularity that grounds virtually all atheist’s arguments. You’ve been taught well, grasshopper. If you think this a good thing to do you should consider stop trolling this thread and start your own on that very topic.

Let’s set aside our cheerful banter and focus on one thing, Prismatic. I want you to answer one simple question.

I’ll preface what follows by repeating the claim that you erroneously applied the argumentum ad populum fallacy to my earlier proofs showing that God is an information-bearing concept as evidenced by the sheer amount of objective discussion that has always taken place about Him and still does today. Even though you were shown to be wrong in your misapplication of the aforementioned fallacy, I’ll leave it out below because it’s moot anyway.

Again.

1.Concepts that present information to the mind pass at minimum the first test for possibility of existence of some sort. We are able to see this clearly by comparing concepts with actual impossibilities.

  1. A round triangle only has information appropriate to the separate terms used to form it. “Round” and “triangle” present information. A “round triangle” cannot be conceived of because it possesses no information.

  2. God—who may or may not exist in ways you, I or others are willing to define—does not belong to the realm of impossibilities because the concept provides information to minds which can thus be objectively discussed, just as your own posts so often do.

I’m not asking you to accept that God is real, only wish to see if you’ll answer honestly that the concept “God” possesses information in comparison to actual impossibilities, which plainly do not. Will you now concede that given the three points above your claim that God is an impossibility is wrong?

Since I am not agreeable to your OP, I will not address the details, but I note this point;

To be more precise, it is not accurate to view ‘God’ as a concept per se.

Kant classify thoughts in terms of intuition, concepts and ideas.

Intuition is based on experiences, i.e. a priori [inherited as nature] and a posteriori [nurture].
askphilosophers.org/question/204

Grounded on intuitions [emprical], human utilize the intellect and reasoning to conceptualize concepts [empirical].
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

Ideas are thoughts that are empty of empirical concepts. Ideas are pure concepts of pure reason that are not grounded on any empirical elements.
blackwellreference.com/publi … 510_ss1-10

There are only 3 philosophical ideas, i.e. the soul, the Whole Universe, and God.

Since for these ideas no corresponding object can be given in sense-experience, their existence is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

I have argued with evidences, the idea of God is more likely due to psychological impulses driven by the existential crisis within.

There had been no direct empirical evidence of a God since the idea of God emerged onto human consciousness since thousands of years ago but we have empirical evidences of how the idea of God arose in people’s brain and mind.

My repeated attempts to persuade Prismatic to address my proof that the position he has taken in multiple posts in multiple threads—that the idea of God is an impossibility—was posed repeatedly here to demonstrate the process by which value mechanics (or spiritual mechanics), posted in the op, functions. I ran across some old graphics (see below) made years ago that might help clarify. (Apologies for their crudity; I’m neither an artist or particularly skilled on the computer beyond word processing.)

Each circle in the graphics represents an iota of information. White iotas exist in a true condition, black are false. The Obscure Apprehension graphic symbolizes a sample of the general content of a soul or intellect—living information—as it exists in a fragmentally falsified condition. The other two represent illustrations of true and false informational belief states within the intellect. In the case of obscure apprehension, the diagram illustrates how value affects cognitive functions generally, the other two more specifically.

The reception of false descriptive propositions in cognition (4+4=6, the surface temperature of the sun is 128.5 degrees Fahrenheit) produce only a mild cognitive tension. Factual reality is essentially inert (no ought from is). One reason for this may be that the actual falsity or state of falsification which produces factual error is peculiar to the animated intellect. Because the animating principle of the agent is prescriptive and falsifiable—and the descriptive information she processes possesses value different in kind and immutably true—its mathematical patterning (or some combination of matter’s features) in apprehension of the t¬f discord in descriptive propositions may be automatically intuited [the sense or discovery of error] as just a feature of internal dysfunction absent of moralistic force.

But discord raised in prescriptive (or prescript-affiliated) propositions go beyond mere tension to produce a much more robust resistance, and are of primary interest here. Prismatic’s responses to the proof provided—assuming this proofs is true in the whole, i.e., the proposition that God is an impossibility is a demonstrable error—illustrates the power of prescriptive truth in connection with one or more insuperable false beliefs (IFB).

Prismatic’s oft-repeated claims—“I have not come across any poster here who has cracked my argument ‘God is an Impossibility.’”—and subsequent responses to requests to repent of this claim on the basis of proffered evidence to the contrary provides an example of how the IFB functions.

The strength of an IFB in the f[1]f[/i] union is such that its holder, unable to form a proper t[2]t[/i] synthesis, will perform any of a number of evasive maneuvers to avoid the t¬f pressure true prescriptive propositions convey to the IFB. This pressure is illustrated by the multiple red lines of resistance between the IFB and surrounding true information in the False Belief graphic. Prismatic’s responses to repeated presentation of the truth-bearing rebuttal of his ‘God is impossible’ claim can be read in posts above to corroborate these principles. Most here have had enough experience with different personalities in life’s conversations and in message board dialog to recognize the their applicability here.

In an aside, it seems plausible that in prescriptive matters the holding of one or more false beliefs by agent “A” that are provably wrong lends credence to the notion that some significant quantity of the associated set of beliefs “A” draws from his worldview—which stand in various degrees of difficulty to disprove—to support his provably wrong beliefs, are themselves largely or wholly false as well by virtue of their standing in the same category of moral (dis)belief, and are likely to have been developed by motives similar to those used to develop and hold his provably erroneous IFBs.

While this seems intuitively true, the issue is more complicated. Virtually all atheists also hold moral beliefs in common with their theist brethren—i.e., beliefs that justice is a good that should prevail, murder and rape are wrong, humans are innately entitled to certain rights (though the rights applicable to this set are controversial), etc. Theists also hold IFBs and these inevitably enter into their moral and ethical discussions. And the issue is made more difficult by the general obscurity fragmental falsification in essence imposes on one’s ability to acquire, process and rationalize external and internal information, again referencing the Obscure Apprehension graphic.

It’s hypothesized here that the power of prescriptive value drives motives, and causally the majority of human behavior. Value interactions can explain why some minds tend toward philosophies like physicalism, materialism, relativism, etc.—worldviews that strongly embrace human autonomy—while others tend toward philosophies which stand in degrees of opposition in one or more respects to them.

The False Belief graphic illustrates some features for how an IFB affects other functions. While resistance excludes any possibility of union between the two, the IFB differs from one’s natural “fragmentally falsified” state in that the fragmental state only creates impedance to clear thought [and probably degrees of impurity to proper function of emotions], producing only mild dispositions to reject propositional truths over falsehoods. This would be the case in granting credence to a falsehood because of insufficient information or due to vagueness of the truth of a matter imposed by t-f impedance (weak value affiliations).

IFBs might be thought of as “clusters” of concentrated falsity. An analogy is that beliefs that populate a worldview are like pages in a manila folder. It’s generally held that if consistently pursued, wrong choice leads to a process of cognitive “deadening”, or increase of predilection away from what a consensus of reasonable agents would deem proper and appropriate lifestyle preferences, as for example the choice to experiment with drugs is thought to sometimes lead to heavier usage and eventual addiction. Following this pattern, frequent wrong choice leads to an informational state in which sufficient falsity is generated with respect to a certain belief that it saturates and occupies a page [one belief] in a folder [worldview]. An agent logically exists in some established quantity or amount of information, so that falsification is not added to essence, existing truth-bearing iotas are rendered false. We exist as contiguous information packages, in various percentages of true and false value.

In the possession of IFBs, the t[3]t[/i] union is lost, and the t¬f conflict common to simple contemplation in prescriptive issues morphs into a f[4]f[/i] union by repeated willful subjection to propositional falsity. In the IFB, a false belief is established and held as true, and ensuing energies applied to the topic are thereafter exercised by the holder in trying to produce true propositions in support of it. The natural loss of affiliation between true and false information would be naturally imposed on apprehension by the juxtaposition of opposite values within the information of the whole; these would contribute to the mind’s ability to live with disparate prescriptive beliefs—if we can’t clearly “see” the contradictions in our worldviews, we aren’t forced to deal with them.

Prismatic’s contrived rationale (falsely imposed logical fallacy as a pretext of refutation) is a common diversion employed by an agent whose allegiance to his IFB (and affiliated system of false beliefs) shrinks from truth it cannot unite with. The true-false moral opposition is every bit as strong as its material [electromagnetic] plus-minus value counterpart. Prismatic’s unwillingness to concede the truth of the evidence presented is based on an inability to overcome the strong f[5]f[/i] link to unite with the truth in the proposition offered.

It follows from the principles suggested that societal norms, because they’re formed by the predispositions appropriate to the truth- or falsity-bearingness of its members, will reflect these accrued values and either advance toward the establishment and maintenance of true ethical/moral models or deteriorate in the direction of further falsehoods. It should be obvious that increases in holding to the false are inevitably directed to moral/behavioral deterioration and eventual chaos, while progression toward truth-bearing ideals results in advancement of the good.
TRUEbeliefa.jpg
FALSEbeliefa.jpg
OBSCURITYa.jpg


  1. i ↩︎

  2. i ↩︎

  3. i ↩︎

  4. i ↩︎

  5. i ↩︎

Noun: reality (ree’a-li-tee)

  1. All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you
  2. The state of being actual or real
  3. The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be

It appears from the above the I’m able to claim #1, we both own #2 and you have #3. This is a non-issue for me James; I don’t see the cash value in jumping off my understanding and onto yours, so let’s agree to disagree on this one.
I enjoy and appreciate your posts, you give me good stuff to think about…still trying to get my head around affectance ontology.

I think that you are misinterpreting #1.
Definition #1 states that “reality” refers to the actual experiences that cause an appearance. It is not saying that “reality” refers to the appearance, perception, or perspective. How reality appears to you is never the actual reality that causes the appearance.

Affectance Ontology is actually pretty simple. Proving it gets complicated, but is available.

RM:AO begins with the declaration of definition of “existence”;

  • Existence == that which has affect or potential to affect. For anything to be said to exist, it must be accepted as having affect or such potential. And for anything to be said to not exist, it must be accepted as having no affect whatsoever nor any such potential. Immediately there is an implied equivalence between existence and affectance. And that is a significant philosophical step (I don’t think ever mentioned throughout history).

  • The second step is to realize that affects propagate in waves or pulses of increasing and decreasing potential-to-affect other propagating waves (PtA). This constitutes “affect-upon-affect”. Increasing PtA is declared “positive” while decreasing PtA is declared “negative”, merely as lexicon definitions. Their propagation speed is as fast as logically possible.

  • And when affects cross each other’s path, their propagation gets delayed due to the buildup of simultaneous affecting; “affect upon affect” leads to “affect upon propagation of affect”. Such delays are due to the fact that each propagating affect is already changing space (increasing or decreasing the PtA at each point) as fast as possible. When multiple affects attempt to change the same point in space, the rate of changing of that point cannot increase, thus the propagation through that point must decrease. Each propagating wave retards the others.

  • That delayed propagation is then what leads to the formation of spots of congestion that we call “mass particles” with inertia and momentum.

  • If the congestion of propagating waves is formed mostly of increasing PtA, the particle that is formed is what we know as a “positive particle” (specifically a “positron”). And when the congestion is formed of decreasing PtA waves, the particle is what we know as a "negative particle, specifically an “electron”. And when on average the congestion is neither increasing nor decreasing, a “neutral particle” is formed, “neutrino”.

  • From those three fundamental “monoparticle” types all larger congestions form as larger “polyparticles”; neutrons, protons, anti-protons, and so on.

  • If there are many pulses propagating as a group in the same direction, it is what we know as a “photon” (or in Quantum Physics as a “virtual particle”).

Those fundamental forms of existence combine to form literally all physical existence. How and why they each behave as they do is a longer story that explains gravitation, electromagnetism, magnetism, radioactivity, … literally every known physical phenomenon.

One of the far more complex results of such affectance behavior is what we call a * “mind” that utilizes symbols, pictures, and language in forming a simulated representation of remote affects, a “map of the terrain”, the process we then call “consciousness” - awareness of a remote environment.

  • And as it turns out, that consciousness is also formed through propagating waves and pulses of perceived affects, “perceptions of affects”, “perceptions of the scene”. The waves are propagating perceptions of either remote hopeful affects or remote threatening affects, “PHT” (analogous to PtA).

  • And just as propagating PtA waves delay each other, propagating PHT waves also delay each other, forming congestions of senses and thought in the basic forms of Hopes, Threats, and Inconsequentials (“positive, negative, and neutral”).

Those fundamental forms of perception combine to form literally all psychological behavior.

And again, the analogy extends from individual psychological behavior into sociological behaviors of communities and nations.

All topics of concern have

  • affects,
  • propagations,
  • congestions,
  • positive,
  • negative,
  • neutral

And all of the associated relationships and interactions of those form all reality.

As noted above, there’s no reason to argue this, it’s a matter of semantics. When the day comes you can tell me what I dreamed last night, what my or anyone else’s nightmares, hopes and ambitions are–I’ll agree with your definition. The idea of subjectivity creating a personal reality doesn’t impugn the notion of a single reality (as I’ve pointed out a number of times now)–from which all subjective realities draw their material. My thoughts don’t “cause an appearance” to you and vise versa. I think you would understand me better if you used my translation of reality as information. Everything, even dreams and fictions are created information, draw from and give back to the pool of information that’s everything (reality). I don’t see any important difference between what I’m saying and what you’re saying except that you hold to a rabid ‘reality fundamentalist’ position that has no space outside your interpretation of the matter for expansion. So be it.

Having admitted I struggle with it, thanks for building up my self image. I think I’ll just go drink some poison now.

:laughing:
Oh geeezzz…

I freely admit that tend to make things seem more complicated than they are.