Reality - Version 0.1

James

This may seem pedantic to you but it is extremely important to me that we keep things very clear.

I can not use the word virtual in the context of our conversation unless it relates to the word divine. Because virtual is also in the sense ‘possessing certain virtues’. Virtual space is not perfect like metaspace as I understand it from your paragraph and my understanding. Virtual Space in the context of computing and physics can not be perfect owing to lack of precision leading to perfection. Virtual Space to me lives in our realm inside of our devices or on paper or what ever other medium you can think of to portray it. We transcend the virtual space in that regard but the metaspace would transcend even us. A lot of ambiguity because if in the sense ‘possessing certain virtues’ then to me virtues belong in metaspace. Virtual as it relates to the divine would suggest lack of corruption - as it applies to our realm I suggest with corruption.

In the context of computing or physics however I would be happy to use the word virtual. Due to this I read your paragraph as follows:

To me, the word “metaspace” refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. God, and all “angels” are concepts that “exist in” the “Divine” or “Conceptual Realm” of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

I would say that our understanding of totality is incomplete; we can however understand it in a relative sense. We use our representations to understand totality in a relative sense. Would you disagree?

Maybe I get too hung up on hierarchy but the Seraphim are below GOD - Metaspace is above Virtual Space. Failing this I do believe that we can still work in such a way that brings about clarity in a relative sense.

Indeed.

I am sure you are correct. So far I have no reason to doubt you.

Well emmm, okay.

Virtual == not identical to but possessing the essential qualities or virtues.
Metaspace == idealized or conceptual space.

Both imply attributes that are not physically real in detail, but I’m not married to either word. I don’t own the language.

Perhaps we disagree on the word “understand”. :wink:

To “under-stand” is not to know every detail, but rather to have a fundamental grasp upon which details and particulars gain grounding and relevance, a conceptual foundation and footing. RM:AO reveals an infinitely precise foundation upon which the details and particulars of any given real situation can be understood. Precisely what you mean by “totality” is not clear to me. I am certain that there are an infinity of particulars within the totality of the universe that RM:AO doesn’t reveal or describe. RM:AO is about the fundamental form, make-up, or under-standing of all existence (an “ontology”). Whether the Moon is made of cheese or cholesterol wouldn’t be something that RM:AO would directly reveal.

Both RM and separately AO are “seraphims” relating to “GOD”.

… if you like.

Our version of understanding is not too disparate. I think we can compare easily. Let us start with totality.

I totally agree with you here by way of what we can not imagine yet.

I am not so certain though that RM:AO doesn’t describe these particulars. I understand that it may not be able to reveal the said particulars.

Let me build a theme for you before finishing with my own interpretation of how RM:AO fits in to the grand scheme of things.

Because I feel lazy at the moment I pasted the following from Wikipedia. I will say however that this is a great representation of what I mean.

Totality and Infinity - Start

Emmanuel Levinas in his work: Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority

The Other

Levinas advances the thesis that all ethics derive from a confrontation with an other. This other, with whom we interact concretely, represents a gateway into the more abstract Otherness.

The distinction between totality and infinity divides the limited world, which contains the other as a material body, from a spiritual world. Subjects gain access to this spiritual world, infinity, by opening themselves to the Otherness of the other. For example:

To approach the other in conversation is to welcome his expression, in which at each instant he overflows the idea a thought would carry away from it. It is therefore to receive from the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which means exactly: to have the idea of infinity. (p. 51)

Presence

Levinas places heavy emphasis on the physical presence involved in meeting the other. He argues that only a face-to-face encounter allows true connection with Infinity, because of the incessance of this type of interaction. Written words and other words do not suffice because they have become past by the time the subject perceives them. That is: they have fallen into the register of totality.

Jacques Derrida, in “Violence and Metaphysics,” takes Levinas to task for this assumption, arguing characteristically that writing might be at least as sacred as speech.

Totality and Infinity - Finish


As it relates to the Absolute - Start

In philosophy, metaphysics, religion, spirituality, and other contexts, the Absolute is a term for the most real being. The Absolute is conceived as being itself or perhaps the being that transcends and comprehends all other beings.

While there is agreement that there must be some fundamental reality, there is disagreement as to what exactly that might be. For example, some theist philosophers argue that the most real being is a personal God. Some pantheist philosophers argue that the most real being is an impersonal existence, such as reality or awareness. Others (such as perennial philosophers) argue that various similar terms and concepts designate to the same Absolute entity. Atheist, agnostic, and scientific pantheist philosophers might argue that some mathematical property or natural law such as gravity or simply nature itself is the most real being

As it relates to the Absolute - End


My Own Interpretation - Simply put: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

The way I see it RM:AO helps us to explain everything as opposed to nothing; this would include the conceptual and the physical.

Also taken from Wikipedia: Everything (or every thing), is all that exists; the opposite of nothing, or its complement. It is the totality of things relevant to some subject matter. Without expressed or implied limits, it may refer to anything. The Universe is everything that exists theoretically, though a multiverse may exist according to theoretical cosmology predictions. It may refer to an anthropocentric worldview, or the sum of human experience, history, and the human condition in general. Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all physical bodies and in some cases all abstract objects.

Whether you see it or not I am saying that I believe totality is all of the above and more and RM:AO is able to help us understand that totality. This is the prime reason why RM:AO is special to me . . . Now despite what I believe I am still able to come to a more complete understanding of RM:AO.

As surreptitious57 says: Agree or disagree it makes no difference to me.

:laughing:

In any case and no matter what, with regards to RM:AO: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

Quick Reference Text
written by James S Saint.

[size=85]So that I do not have to search through the thread for some things.
I have also attempted an order for the text.[/size]

Meta
The word “metaspace” refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. God, and all “angels” are concepts that “exist in” the “Divine” or “Conceptual Realm” of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

Euclidean space is an ontological choice that can be chosen differently, such as Minkowski’s space or Einstein’s “spacetime”. Each of those are metaspace concepts.

The triangle, circle, and square are also a part of that Divine or Conceptual Realm of “perfect” entities. So for me, the “Metaspace” is virtually the same thing as the Conceptual Realm within which God reigns with principle or fundamental affect. The Metaspace is the very concept of 3D space, not the physical space itself (which only exists due to the infinite amount of affectance). In a sense, affectance causes physical space.

God is the most fundamental, underlying principle causing the physical universe to exist, aka “First/Prime Cause”. And since God is an eternal entity (conceptual realm) and a cause, what is being caused must also be eternal, the physical universe.

The “Prime Principle” governing affect is simply, “Nothing can be what it isn’t” (Aristotle - “Dialectic”, aka “Logic”), “It is what it is” (Hebrew), “I am that which is” (Moses), or the ever popular, “I Am that I Am” (modern interpretation of Torah and the OT).

In reference to God, there is the general behavior or principle called “God” and there is the actual concurrent situation called “God”. The concurrent situation throughout the entire universe is always enacting the general principle called “God”. Therefore that general principle must physically exist at all times and in all locations throughout the entire universe. That conclusion can’t be rationally avoided.

There are times when a concept or an abstract principle is being physically enacted. During those times, the meta-concept and the physically real unite. God is one example of the union of the physical reality of God and the meta-concept of God. The Conceptual/Divine Realm, though a separate category, is not entirely exclusive of physical objects.

The entire physical universe is made of nothing but the fundamental affect, affect-upon-affect, aka an infinite field of “Affectance”.

The “fundamental affect” is “affect-upon-affect”, the fundamental substance of the entire physical universe, an affect being altered by another affect. And it is governed by a Prime Principle which requires that no affect can ever be instantaneous or take zero amount of time (which is the result of infinity (as infA or H) always being less than infinity² (infA² or H²). Time, being defined as the measure of relative change (in this case, relative to other affecting). Affecting (aka “light in a vacuum”) propagates at a particular speed because it can do no other (“Let there be light” - “propagation of affect”).

Both RM and separately AO are “Seraphim” relating to “GOD”.

Spirit
The scriptural word “spirit” merely refers to “behavior”. Anywhere a particular behavior arises, the same “spirit” appears (just an issue of definition of the words). The eternal portion of a person is in two forms, “soul” and “spirit”. The soul is merely the conceptual definition of the person, their conceptual essence (e.g. “a good person who likes fishing and chasing hot women”).

All concepts are always eternal, thus all souls are eternal. A perfect circle is always what a perfect circle is and any particular kind of person is always that particular kind of person. A person can change which kind they are until the person’s body dies. Then they are forevermore whatever they last were.

Spirits are a little different in that a spirit, a behavior, can come and go. A spirit is physical and literally moves about (and yes some form of body is required). That is where you get those ghost stories. A “ghost” is a “ghe-host”, a “spirit host”, or “the behavior that occupies the body” and in computers would be their “programming”. These days, you are more likely to hear of it as “an attitude”. Behaviors and attitudes pop up all over and wheresoever one of them reflects a familiar tone, therein lies a familiar spirit, perhaps of one once loved (or hated). The universe can never be totally void of any spirit that has ever been, nor of any that will ever be, thus in a mathematically provable sense, everyone’s spirit shall always be eternal. The question is within what environment will they struggle (aka “Heavenly or Hellish”)?

Mankind
To govern is to limit behavior. The name Ahdam (aka Adam, the purported first governor of Mankind), means “limiting random behavior” or “damming up the flow of chaotically free spirit”.

Memory and History
A memory is merely the residue of a perception. It has physical existence in that it affects the physical brain and mind. But with every physical anything, there is also an associated concept. The concept always remains the same concept, but the physical memory eventually falls to entropy.

There is a real history, a perceived history, and proposed history. They are seldom the same. The actual past does not physically exist, rather the past forms a residue that is the present as the present forms a residue to become the future.

In everything you do, you are forming the future and displacing the past.

For my own benefit:

[size=85]Emmanuel Levinas in his work: Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority[/size]

To approach the other in conversation is to welcome his expression, in which at each instant he overflows the idea a thought would carry away from it. It is therefore to receive from the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which means exactly: to have the idea of infinity.

Written words and other words do not suffice because they have become past by the time the subject perceives them. That is: they have fallen into the register of totality.

Still I ponder: Writing might be at least as sacred as speech.

James

What are your thoughts on how RM:AO affects ethics?

I don’t think that “affects ethics” is exactly the right terminology. RM:AO lays out an indisputable foundation for ethics. I seriously doubt that anything will ever exceed that foundation.

In rational thought, ethics is about the best rules concerning social interaction. And the “best rules” involve the goals of the individuals involved in the society. And those goals have no option but to be MIJOT (even though the participants might not be aware of it). RM:AO merely points out that in order to achieve that goal, the proper amount of give and take must be maintained for as long as possible and with all things considered (no small task, else would have been accomplished millennia ago).

James

I was not sure what terminology to use. What is the right terminology?

James

I can appreciate what you are saying here.

Should we be talking more about rational thought?

or

Best rules?

Depends … what is your goal. “Rational thought” and “Best rules”, both require that answer.

I don’t completely understand what you are saying here. I am guessing that Best Rules are dependent on Rational Thought. But then it true in reverse too, that rational thought would be dependent on best rules.

I have no singular goal. I have a few goals.

…explains a lot.
But I already knew that.

James

What is your goal?

How can you be sure that nothing else will ever exceed that foundation?

The goals are not specified - they could be anything.

Here you are speaking in a way that suggests one goal at a time. True?

I am also guessing that MIJOT is the right terminology - from this question.

James

It is highly probable that it does explain a lot given my posting habits. That you already knew that comes as no surprise to me.
Not to mention the amount of stuff I do away from this forum. Being 42 years old - I am still working too.

In October last year I set out to achieve several things and I am determined to finish those things - the more I have to do by myself the longer it will take.

I wont give up on anything that I have started.

The less clear things are to me - the longer it will take me to understand these things.

My ultimate goal is a clear truth in life - that could take some time to achieve.

Rational thought requires a highest priority goal. That is “The Goal”. All other goals are merely subservient to that one, “The One”.

And yes, MIJOT is my highest priority goal (who would have guessed).

Concerning that one issue, I am not 100% certain merely because I haven’t thought it through to ensure it. But then I have never run across anything that seems to challenge it in any way. So I remain “quite certain”, not “absolutely certain”. Rationality requires working within one’s limits. I don’t see that I need any more, but if it comes, so be it.

And although you don’t appear to know it, MIJOT is actually your highest priority goal as well. Unfortunately, obfuscation and extortion is Man’s current means to manage the masses. That leaves most people a bit helpless to find their highest priority, blinded by the light, clouds, and fear.

To determine the best ethics, one must consider what the highest priority of each and all of the people is, right (that “do unto others” sort of thing)? If you don’t even know what your own highest priority is, how could you possibly determine social ethics?

To know ethics, one must know what affects people.

James

It may be that I am making an obvious move here . . .

I am curious to know why you wrote: And although you don’t appear to know it, MIJOT is actually your highest priority goal as well.

I welcome your honesty in public about this . . .

:sunglasses:

My highest priority goal is different to my highest priority however. I consider my highest priority to be my family’s survival.