The Philosophers

Jakob · April 28, 2018, 8:24pm

I do think I posted that before.

perpetualburn · May 17, 2018, 8:08pm

What is the most esoteric philosophical text of all time?

MagsJ · May 17, 2018, 9:30pm

I’m thinking… something old.

Fixed_Cross · May 20, 2018, 1:36pm

Esoteric… I think it must be some of my own.

At least, something posted on BTL, by me, Parodites or Capable.

But excluding ourselves, I find “The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz” a good contenter.

Fixed_Cross · May 26, 2018, 12:16pm

Sauwelios:

Good stuff, Zoot! It certainly seems like a genuine attempt to understand my signature. In complete accordance with VO, this must always mean reconstruing it from one’s own point of view.

Zoot Allures:

Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.

If we find that it is rational to disvalue this axiom, then we are demonstrating that it is valuable to be rational, even if that means a disvaluation of the rationale itself. Therefore, value is first, what is rational or not is secondary. There is always a valuing when a judgement is made, in other words, and analytical judgements are a result of a long evolutionary investment… N says something about the prehistory of logic that is interesting:

Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man’s head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is “equal” as regards both nourishment and hostile animals–those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously–were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar–an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal–is what first created any basis for logic.

The selection of this error demonstrates that it was valuable to the survival of the human being. The deductive and inductive reasoning, the reasoning in analytical judgements, is an ability that developed because the logical errors which led to the capacity to do so increased the fitness of the human being. From an evolutionary perspective then, the life of this fundamental logical error in epistemology (that things are equal) is hardwired into the genome and menome (don’t use my new word without my permission), and proved to be a valuable characteristic of human beings.

So, in the value axiology we get value precedes rationale (because the negation of this truth itself would be valuable to the negater), and we get a demonstration of the value of our errors in reasoning from an evolutionary point of view (this mistake is calling equal what is not).

Great choice of quote–very relevant–, and a worthy purport to it in my view. Still, I will explain what I meant by my axiom first and foremost.

If we disvalue valuation (a.k.a. valuing), i.e., if we consider it of little or no positive value or of negative value, then we logically must also consider this disvaluation of ours of little or no positive value or of negative value, as it is itself a valuation–namely, a relatively or absolutely low positive valuation or a negative valuation.

Now this need not mean, however, that valuation is an absolute value, a.k.a. a noumenal value. All it means is that it’s a rational value. “Rational” here refers to reason, or at least to human reason, or at least to the reason of most or some humans, or at least to my reason… Truth values, including those of the axioms of logic, are pre-logical–as I basically say in my signature’s next axiom:

Value Logic: Logic’s self-identical “A” is a value, and not necessarily a fact.

Because it is possible to create a language game in which arguments could be made against the absolute rule of Aristotle’s law of identity, and because our shared agreement on what the word ‘fact’ means, any epistemological certainty regarding the truth of this axiom is not available to us. On the other hand, we still use and value the rule in our reasoning, so whether or not it is true is beside the point. There is always a preceding pragmatic principle in praxis and a principled precedence of praxis pragmatically. Therefore, the very foundations of logic need not be true in order to be useful. We have fixed up a world of planes, lines, etc., etc.

Exactly. And it is indeed very apt what you say about language games, as that is exactly what we (or at least I; I will not keep saying this, but I mean it) lapse into as soon as we start arguing against, or trying to break, that law or its complements (the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle). In fact, my axiom may itself be an example of that, which may be why a serious objectivist like James would object to it like that. He won’t admit he’s just playing the “my business is serious” game.

::

Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Because absolute moral relativism is not only a glorious oxymoron but also a conclusion we are led to by a rigorous criticism of objectivist reasoning, we are left with only an amoral affirmation of the whole. We must replace the absence of morality and loss of god with our own legislative artifices; we no longer sit idly on the problem of moral relativism and assert our value system on the world as if it were objective. We cannot not do this, though, because we cannot not value what we value.

Exactly. Even though logically all things are just, including considering things unjust, in practice we must stil consider some things unjust. This axiom is my best attempt at a reconciliation of these facts. It posits an order of rank ranging from those who consider all things just to those who consider all things unjust; and, supposing that things are considered unjust as often as they are considered just, it places oneself modestly in the middle.

::

Lastly I wish to point out that not just the last three axioms of my signature are my own. The second, though the exact formulation is mine, is Jakob’s; the first, however, is mine. First off, let me say something about the names. Value Ontology is what the person known here on ILP as MechanicalMonster first called Jakob’s elaboration of willings to power as self-valuings. I think it has a really strong and catchy ring to it, even though it’s not entirely accurate. I call it Value Metaphysics instead, because “metaphysics” is more comprehensive than “ontology”, often even including epistemology–and VO, like the doctrine of the will to power, explodes the difference between ontology and epistemology. Now “philosophy” is even more comprehensive than “metaphysics”; and while metaphysics has traditionally been considered First Philosophy, I think even that is preceded by the positing of a metaphysics. Still, the two cannot be absolutely distinguished, as even the view that metaphysics are posited, as values, is itself a value, and not necessarily a fact.

Note, by the way, that I came upon the ideas expressed in “my own” four axioms quite independently from Jakob’s coming upon the ideas expressed in “his”.

Most recently, I’ve come to think of a way in which my five axioms may get to form a circle. For I now think that political or moral philosophy, far even from being a specialisation or specification of natural philosophy (cosmology, metaphysics), as I previously thought, is really philosophy proper. For natural philosophy is necessarily anthropomorphosis–or rather, “automorphosis”: for even the concept “man” is already an “automorphism”. A man’s idea or ideal of man, a valuing’s idea or ideal of self, determines even his most “abstract”, “theoretical”, “purely contemplative”, “objective” notions.

“The philosopher does not seek the truth, but the metamorphosis of the world into man: he strives to understand the world with self-consciousness. He strives for an assimilation: he is satisfied when he has construed something anthropomorphically. As the astrologer regards the world in the service of single individuals, so the philosopher regards it as a man.” (Nietzsche, Nachlass Herbst 1872-Winter 1872-73.)

He thus seeks to embody the truth.

Fixed_Cross · May 26, 2018, 12:25pm

Reminder

Fixed_Cross · May 26, 2018, 3:48pm

Reading back, I realize I owe Pezer a public apology, as I realize I did actually slander him here.
Not my finest moments. I should know how to handle his stings of disappointment a lot better.

Well this will have to do.

Fixed_Cross · May 26, 2018, 3:50pm

By Zeus, Sagittarius has no patience and does not compromise.

Arcturus_Descending · May 26, 2018, 3:51pm

Do you think that this apology could be improved upon ~~ just a tad?

Fixed_Cross · May 26, 2018, 4:44pm

I don’t know, its good to owe someone something sometimes.

Work is to be done on the planet.
VO kicks in like what kind of engine?

URUZ · June 18, 2018, 11:41am

This is true. Most of the time.

Fixed_Cross · June 18, 2018, 12:45pm

Hahaha

So right.

Fixed_Cross · July 18, 2018, 4:06pm

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCz7Vn5ErJ0[/youtube]

Fixed_Cross · July 24, 2018, 3:44pm

audiomack.com/song/fixed-cross/ramon

Fixed_Cross · August 14, 2018, 10:21pm

Jakob · September 9, 2018, 7:31pm

Om Nama Value Ontology. Self-valuing logic, Axiomatic Chaos Theory, now operates as seedling in the young, and as a Satan in the discourse of the old. In the former it was their vitality, vigour, virility that triggered a new courage in the mind, in the latter it was an old obedience that found in VO the perfect world to explore as that which is not true; the most scintillating vanity to posture in front of as the blind justice of “I know that I know not”. Demonstrating so palpably how shortsighted and dreamy the self-valuing can get to be able to persist, how such fragility necessarily accompanies the good, because in this best of all possible world, it is only the path of increase that offers sustenance. For there to be health, there must be weakness to be overcome, ever continuing, it is never going to end, it is only a matter of which side you spend your life on.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 7&start=25

Jakob:

Soul is a type of music. Melancholy embodied. Bass, voices from the deep. Fluid, but destined to forgetfulness. Pisces. Mysticism was good enough for 2000 years. Times have changed.

The age of Aquarius is vastly different. How the past will be crystallized into the diamond of the immediate mind which is emerging is not exactly for me to say. Technicians, historians and philosophers of the future must go hand in hand in order to preserve what has proven vital. But it may also be lost. Perhaps drenched up in 2000 years - same as only now, after Nag Hammadi and other secrets in hidden preserves, Christianity is understood. So what is important in the age of Pisces? What has been valuable that, now that we know ‘more and better’, we still can look up to? What do we take into the next age, which won’t make a laughing stock out of us before the - ?

It’s time we admit that there is a new lifeform taking root. We need to name it, before the devil does it.

Take her home boys.

barbarianhorde · September 23, 2018, 3:50pm

OH BACK AT THEWELLLLL

"Book of Doves

Tell me who gave us the Book of Doves
[Alasdair Roberts]

Reality Failure
Ultimately, philosophy strains towards a reality.
Reality is that which we most avoid - even unthinkingly, unintentionally.

Philo-sophia
‘Philo-sophy’ should mean the attraction towards wisdom - i.e., traditional wisdom …
Vision and judgement, my friends.

Presocratics
The Presocratics were not merely the first scientists - they were the first metaphysicians too.

Thales was Right
All Aryan existence begins in rainfall.

Heroic

‘The world’ must be grasped both as Oneness and as Diversity.
This very contradiction is the barbed wire fence which rips the flesh and scars the spirit.
A Hero who is a Hero of Oneness is Doomed to fail just as the Hero who is a Hero of Diversity is Doomed to fail as both will be crushed in the Paradox.
Dionysos and Apollo symbolise this unending contradiction.

Violence

There is a Paganism of Oneness just as there is a Paganism of Diverisity.

Odin is a god of diverse masks, but he is also the Allfather, just as Nietzsche sees all Heroes as masks of Dionysos.
Likewise there is in Nietzsche the Oneness of the Will of Power and also the Diversity of the Perspectival.
The Tyrant is he who - heroically - attempts to “stamp Being on Becoming”, as Nietzsche has it.
That is ‘violence’.
The Tyrant is a Hero withal.

Witches’ Brew

“The mass death in the war for the glory of the German race is the apotheosis of this witches’ dance.” [Wilhelm Reich]

I seized upon the above quote in my Nietzschean Jim Morrison essay as it so obviously echoed Nietzsche’s view of the pure Dionysian [which is Oneness - i.e. the Dionysian without Apolline mediation] as being a “witches’ brew”.
As I say that phrase I can’t help but think of Miles’ Bitches Brew [with John McLaughlin on guitar] which is itself a very pure Dionysian music.
I think also of the view that the witch is a residue in Christian times of the Odinist seidh religion.

The difference between Paganism and Christianity, as Carlyle has it, is that the former divinises Nature while the latter divinises the Moral Law.
In so doing, Christianity transvalues Paganism. The witch is ‘evil’ to the Christian, while the ‘witch’ is ‘good’ to the Pagan. So Paganism’s ‘good and bad’ is transvalued to Christianity’s ‘evil and good’ respectively.

I think again of Miles’ ‘Live Evil’ [also with Johnny Mac]:- ‘Evil’ is itself ‘Life’. The same was thought by Blake too, who saw Evil as Energy.

Just as Odin became the horned Devil, so too is Hitler the personification of Evil.

Savitri Devi’s book The Lightning and the Sun, which deals with Gengis Khan, Akhnaton and Hitler, is a natural sequel to Carlyle’s Hero Worship which begins with Odin and ends with Naopleon.
Given that Nietzsche too affirmed the Heroic in Napoleon, we might see his Dionysian as the bridge between Carlyle’s and Devi’s conceptions.

This is Ragnarok

Despite what they say about Hilter, the West has yet to experience Nothingness: and it is fated that we will.
Ragnarok was/is ushered in by a deadly Winter of annihilation.
But this is like the Indian conception of cyclic ages, with the Kali Yuga being comparable to the age of the Ragnarok.
It is Zarathustra’s downgoing that is a necessary pre-requistite for the creation of the Overhuman.

This is not so much of an historical End Time, but rather a thorough experiencing of Nothingness and a complete oblivion.
This would be beyond all Time and Space.
Therefore it has no ‘when’.
It is beyond even ‘cycles’.
Western culture has always tried to avoid this abysm - our every breath is devoted to certain somethings, to History, to Being and to Becoming.
Unlike the East we have not … let go;
We can’t let go … yet.

Nihilism has yet to be plumbed in total.
Therefore we do not yet know Dionysos in his purest sense.

This Nihilism is the negating of all values known hitherto.
Until, ultimately we are left only with one value: negation itself.

Levels
The distinction between the exoteric and esoteric levels remains; the former is mythology, religion; the latter is philosophy, insight.
Omens
“Precisely because there are no revealed scriptures, the signs become the pre-eminent form of contact with the higher world and a mainstay of piety … To doubt the arts of divination is to fall under the suspicion of godlessness.”
[Burkert, Greek Religion p. 111]
In this form of piety, the whole world, from the smallest to the largest, has meaning.
The problem then becomes one of interpretation.

Hidden Agendas
If self-less morality is in reality self-ish, then is there a higher morality which actually is selfless?
To Nietzsche [e.g. BGE 222] pity, compassion, sympathy etc. are all forms of disguised self-contempt.
If that is so, then he must have thought that ruthlessness cruelty etc. are forms of disguised self-love - or at least of certain strength?
No - isn’t ruthlessness rather undisguised self-hatred?
Or is it more logical to suggest that those with with open self-contempt would have easy contempt for others?
Self-love would entail love for others.

Over-cooked Rococo
The art of 18th century France is a perfected art - a non plus ultra.
Or is it over-perfected.
Is excess of perfection, imperfect?
When the line of perfection is crossed - if there is such a line.

The Two Morrisons
Count the Lords amongst us
Rock and roll your sweet gypsy soul

Reward
Morrison’s recorded voice intoned:
“I tell us this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn!”
And then I experienced - what? - an epiphany?
The soaring upwards of the soul …
transcending the everydayness of the spirit …
suddenly transported into that golden heaven …
The Morrison voice is a sacred message left behind …

The Fence of Offence
He feels offence at what you say?
Then by that he inadvertently admits that what you said was right.
[apologies to D 499]

No Shit-Hoarder
I want to possess nothing - not even this will to non-possession.

Culture Vulture
We have need of art if we ourselves are bereft of inner creativity - this is why those who thirst for culture are disgusting, like starving men who suddenly and excessively glut themselves on food.
The culture-vulture quickly becomes obese with art.

Definitive
A thing cannot be defined into existence - it must be demonstrated.
A definition merely defines itself.

Artistic Order of Rank

The Übermensch - he is a work of art
The great artist - the creator
The man of taste and appreciation for art
Art workers
Those in thrall to art
Slaves too dull for art
#1) is that which all art aspires to - the godly Dionysian man. He is a law unto himself.
#2) is a step removed from #1) and creates in #1)'s likeness.

Double Takes
He gets all ‘meaningful’ and says, “life has no meaning”.
Another says that all things “happen for a reason” - but he cannot give a reason.
This other puts his faith in God’s providence [a sleepwalker, he], whilst he schemes and plans, plotting his future in detail.

Nationalism is Amoral - Good!
The nationalist is undermined by his own moralism as he seeks to use morality as a cushion for nationalism’s amoral separation. He doesn’t have the courage of his convictions.

The Nature of ‘Nature’

“Nature is always valueless.”
[Nietzsche GS 301]
‘Nature’ is a curious abstraction used without qualification to endorse a variety of positions.

Poets
“I am the sworn poet of every dauntless rebel the world over.”
[Whitman To a foil’d European revolutionaire 1955-81]
In ancient Greece the poet was called upon to save the City.

Novel Philosophy
Wilson says that all philosophers should attempt to put their ideas into the form of the novel.
The essay, after all, is merely a form for testing, experimenting; only a step on from the workshop that is a notebook.
But do you have a philosophy that can be put into a novel?

Inside Greek Philosophy
Colin Wilson doesn’t find an Outsider amongst the Greek philosophers.

The Hero
Someone who tries to live like an ancient Greek in a modern urban technocratic society?

Punny
“You can’t build a revolution on puns.”
[Russel Brand to Rainbow George 2008]

Death
Death is something complex - not just a ceasing of existence. This complexity is variously described metaphorically in mythology.

Moral Relativism
All morality is relative: we ought not to interfere in others’ morality - but ‘ought’ implies a moral imperative.

Reality as Perfection
This is my interest: the quest for perfected reality. To live in such a way that one is completely enmeshed in the real. Not, as one usually is - absent-mindedly, imaginatively, phantastically - transported ‘somewhere else’: in some suspended parallel state.
Destroy your reality.

Torture
“The personal cry for vengeance demands that before death the criminal must suffer long and severely; in other words, that torture must precede death.”
[Ryley Scott A History of Torture 1940 p. 7]

Trust No One
“Her legend was depicted by runes traced in gibbet dust.”
[James Havoc Satanskin 1992]
“Her face stank of lightning.”
[ib.]

Music Pass-ive Pass-ion
Is listening to music a passive act?
But consciousness is intentional - so listening is an intentional act.
Only meditation lacks intentionality - and that is in silence.
Sounds are not real: the body makes them like it makes sweat.

Rune Koans
The Zen Koans are reminiscent of Viking culture.
The meaning of ‘koan’ itself reminds one of the public rune-stones.
“A buried stone coffer was found. In it was a perfect circular mirror engraved on the back in runes were the words ‘Perfect Realisation’
Leave for a moment that perfect mirror buried underground: the perfect mirror at this instant in your hands, what is it?
Try and bring it out of its stone coffer.
When the stone-coffer is broken open, what is the perfect mirror like?”
[adapted from Leggett, Samurai Zen, Routledge 2003 p. 50]
Perefct realisation of Odin’s Discovery of the Runes -
Mirror - reflection in the Lake.
Sword in the Stone
Mirror Shield - a Shewer [OE sceawian]
Glinting Blade
Rune Coffer
The Shattered Reflection of Loss.

Meditation
The birds sing: thoughts drift by like clouds and disappear.
Dreams float to the surface and ‘pop’.
I dive to the depths of Nothingness.

Art
Art as a justification for life, or as a distraction from life.

Solid Air
The purest spiritual being cannot live.
Thta’s why all spirits are dead.

Hippie
The hippie movement wanted to go towards a pure spirituality and a higher culture. As Nietzsche notes, music is inimical to a higher culture.
The hippie movement was ultimately misled by i) drugs and ii) music.
These prevented a pure spitiuality and a higher culture from being created - No real spirituality was achieved. The Eastern spiritual genius was referred to, but it wasn’t taken any further because the West was not spiritual enough; it couldn’t pull its weight, let alone soar into the heights.

Morality undermines itself
If I do good deeds, I will get into Heaven - but you should do good deeds for themselves, not for selfish reasons … such as to get into Heaven.

Dionysos symbolises the exoteric knowledge of the void.
In the esoteric there are no rituals, no symbols, no art. There is no ‘clutter’.
The esoteric is beyond abstraction."

Bill “first over the wall” Boethius

barbarianhorde · September 23, 2018, 3:59pm

Nietzsche sent us out there, we ran through the fire over the fields and reached the wall. We climbed it and took the citadel!

As the dark void creeps and stretches itself out over the world and closes in we reach for a way to act. It is here we find runes. Odin died - Long Live Odin!

All struggle is gain. It has hooks and turns, a sign we are, indicating now something.

Fixed_Cross · September 26, 2018, 12:02pm

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do… all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method “Afflate Analysis” which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an “affectence oblate” or simply put, “a clump of turbulence”. It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper “rules of afflate engagement” equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the “why” behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There without-music, you can use this thread to whine about how impossible it is to understand anything.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Transferred from the Definitional Logic thread…

Fixed Cross wrote:
What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to “objectively observe” (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.

If this is in fact accomplished, this is of course nothing short of revolutionary, not to mention rather dangerous. What would have been accomplished then, is that the rational man has managed to value the universe effectively in his own terms, and established his own ground-term, his self-valuing as a rational being, to perfection.

It is hard to say if the benefits or the danger outweighs.
Masterfully stated and better than I could have said it. Thank you, Fixed Cross.

without-music wrote:
Yes, well said, Fixed. I have to apologize for my lack of patience, but James and I have had this argument (as well as ones similar) a number of times on ILP.

Quote :
That it may work is not unimaginable, considering that “the physical” is itself an interpretation.

What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to “objectively observe” (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.
Indeed. I have gotten at this idea with James before, the idea that the physical is itself a (certain, necessary, inevitable) falsification that is always-already human. If we can affirm this notion, and speak of the Real in terms of the Symbolic (which is to say, discard the Real altogether as unnecessary Platonism, as Nietzsche would have us do), then space is made in which a project like James’s can be allowed to take hold. I believe I have already illustrated the trouble I have with James’s project here, so I’ll leave it at that.

The comparison between Dionysian and Apollonian is apt. I suppose, in some sense, the conflict between James and I is a microcosm for the primordial conflict at the heart of the human condition, the conflict that gives birth to both life and art – and, with enough finesse, perhaps life as art.

Although I agree the with apparent analogy with Apollo and Dionysus, This project is merely a stepping stone of understanding to the greater accomplishment.

Because this project was founded, not in Science, but Metaphysics, ALL terms are stated as generically applicable concepts. The relations are necessarily true for any and all fields of thought or endeavor, every field of Science, every endeavor of societies, and every endeavor of any individual… every philosophy… “Theory of Everything” (and now “Law of Everything”).

It is above the concern of Chaos vs Order. It is the order of the their contest. Physical reality is merely one of its children.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do… all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method “Afflate Analysis” which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an “affectence oblate” or simply put, “a clump of turbulence”. It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper “rules of afflate engagement” equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the “why” behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.
can you give an example of a “why”?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
can you give an example of a “why”?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?
Well, the simple reason for your question would be that if 2 masses were to be in the same location at the same time, they would be the same mass, merely twice as much of it. I could ask, “why can’t 2 clouds be in the same place at the same time?”

But to get into the really deep understanding requires a far more serious education on exactly what “mass” really means. Science doesn’t define it very exactly, thus RM doesn’t use the term. But inertia is effectively the same thing and RM does use the concept of inertia. What we call “mass” is really a culmination of turbulent energy. Energy isn’t a common term in RM either, but strongly relates to affectence. RM uses affectence, from affect, as its fundamental element of concern. Existence is affectence. Affectence then causes space, time, and all of the physical phenomena.

A very short and surprizing example of a why that Science apparently hasn’t figured out yet is why it is that an electron doesn’t go zipping into a proton and get annihilated. The surprising, yet provable answer is called “the weak force” in Science but is actually due to the fact that, believe it or not, the proton pushes it away out to its orbital radius. If it tries to leave its orbit, the proton will pull it back in, but will not allow it to get closer. Although I know exactly why it does that, which came as a stunning surprise to me, the whole thing is rather complex.

Contemporary physics has a few fundamental formula close to right, but not quite. One of those is the formula for charge and/mass attraction, Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2). That formula, as it turns out is very close to right as long as the particles are at a respectable distance. But when the particles get very close, that formula is too inaccurate to be used and doesn’t really apply. A negative particle when approaching a positive particle of greater inertia, will in fact be repelled. The particle will end up maintaining a distant orbit as it cannot get closer nor further away and thus we have atoms. Without that repulsion, there would be no atoms and no molecules and thus no life to wonder why.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the source of this repulsive effect that “large mass” charged particles, such as protons, have on “low mass” inversely charged particles, such as electrons, over a very short distance? It may be complex, but surely you can give a basic explanation with appeal to a little math and some basic conceptual construction and reference.

“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What is the source of this repulsive effect that “large mass” charged particles, such as protons, have on “low mass” inversely charged particles, such as electrons, over a very short distance? It may be complex, but surely you can give a basic explanation with appeal to a little math and some basic conceptual construction and reference.
One must be careful of what one says publicly before formal publication in the academic or scientific community. It is a bit like being an attorney in a murder trial. The academic world and the political world are pretty identical, a society of snakes in a land of lies. I have already run across someone trying to claim the theory as his own. And in their world, first publication gets the prize regardless of all else. I am also a little concerned as to exactly how the world is going to see the over-all implications of Jack. As someone recently stated, it is a bit dangerous. I’m not so much worried about the world knowing as much as in what order they learn.

But I will tell you that the proton actually sees the electron inside that radius as a positive particle. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very well then. I would not encourage you to divulge more here than you are ready. I would perhaps encourage you to write a brief treatise of your findings and discoveries, and get it published somewhere, anywhere. That way you can be free from worry about your idea/s being stolen or discovered by someone else. That way you would be free to discuss and spread knowledge of your discoveries everywhere possible, which would be ideal if indeed your discoveries are what they claim to be.

That being said, I will move this in a different direction - utility, or hypothetical postulatory derivation of larger implications. Let us assume, for the moment, that what you claim to have done is correct, that you have indeed built a perfect “model” (or sub- or meta-reality) of existence with respect to particle formation, the natural laws and mathematical-logical relations of these, etc. Let us say you have derived reality.

Based on this assumption, what follows? What is the end-result, the implication/s of your discovery? We can assume for argument’s sake that a ToE is entirely possible and may/will be discovered in our lifetime, or at least quite soon. There are certain logical difficulties and philosophical problems associated with this assumption, but let us shelve those for the moment: assuming a true ToE, what follows from this, and in what sense/with respect to what, and why?

“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

My first concern was that of the lust of Man for domination of Life.

Man always sees the most blatantly obvious tool for aggression over whoever he has seen as his enemy and lusts quickly to use it, leaving figuring out why he didn’t want to for later. In the West, that enemy is none other than the population itself. The ToE offers first a perspective to allow for the original division of heaven and Earth wherein the chosen isolate totally from the unchosen. The Chosen live in relative peace and the unchosen are governed by strife and endless struggle. The “Devil” is their warden. The ToE allows for such a paradigm to be mathematically precise and undauntable. That is the first most obvious “Weapon”.

The second most obvious weapon involves the ability to chose a target within perhaps 10,000 miles, push a button and then express shock and great concern that those bad guys over there did something to turn that satellite, submarine, underground bunker, aircraft, or even town into no more than dust and mush. Push a button in a basement in Virginia and shed a public tear for Peking’s recent “spontaneous disintegration” into dust and mush. It makes no difference whatsoever of what the material was made. But turn up the dial too far, and rather than mere disintegration, the sub atomic energy and mass becomes radiant energy, from which the sight of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion would appear as little more than a firecracker. Nothing could stop this weapon short of a black-hole (or turning up that dial too far).

The third weapon, not so obvious, is truly the Lord of All Weapons. I won’t go into what it does and certainly not how it does it, but the upshot is that it makes weapon 1 and 2 seem like teens with BB guns trying to protect the neighborhood corner territory as their domain. Even the black-hole can’t stop weapon 3.

On the brighter side, very many advances in technologies become within reach such as communications, huge memory storage advance, nanotech, very endless “free” energy, and all the fun things you see being used in society to spawn greater rush into a non-human world.
All religions, all governments, and all organizations of every type will change. Once it becomes clear what is really controlling what, “who’s the real boss” amongst all the noise, all else bows to what cannot be changed.
Life begins to be about living again rather than conquering, about increasing its momentum of harmony, not the height of its pyramidic temples. Medicines return to being about curing, not controlling. Laws become about arbitrating, not controlling. Psychology becomes about increasing life’s harmony, not holding it in predesignated places.
Laws and moralities get reduced to demographic concerns only, with freedom to find ones nitch. And the “Devil” is locked into a cage of light within which there are no shadows in which to hide or reach out to make that unseen touch.

Man’s 10,000 year dance with the Devil comes to an end for once and for all time.

Other than, I don’t really expect much will change. Smile

Quote :
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 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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:

My first concern was that of the lust of Man for domination of Life.

Man always sees the most blatantly obvious tool for aggression over whoever he has seen as his enemy and lusts quickly to use it, leaving figuring out why he didn’t want to for later. In the West, that enemy is none other than the population itself. The ToE offers first a perspective to allow for the original division of heaven and Earth wherein the chosen isolate totally from the unchosen. The Chosen live in relative peace and the unchosen are governed by strife and endless struggle. The “Devil” is their warden. The ToE allows for such a paradigm to be mathematically precise and undauntable. That is the first most obvious “Weapon”.

The second most obvious weapon involves the ability to chose a target within perhaps 10,000 miles, push a button and then express shock and great concern that those bad guys over there did something to turn that satellite, submarine, underground bunker, aircraft, or even town into no more than dust and mush. Push a button in a basement in Virginia and shed a public tear for Peking’s recent “spontaneous disintegration” into dust and mush. It makes no difference whatsoever of what the material was made. But turn up the dial too far, and rather than mere disintegration, the sub atomic energy and mass becomes radiant energy, from which the sight of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion would appear as little more than a firecracker. Nothing could stop this weapon short of a black-hole (or turning up that dial too far).

The third weapon, not so obvious, is truly the Lord of All Weapons. I won’t go into what it does and certainly not how it does it, but the upshot is that it makes weapon 1 and 2 seem like teens with BB guns trying to protect the neighborhood corner territory as their domain. Even the black-hole can’t stop weapon 3.

With respect to this need to dominate-control: I argue that only an ‘evolution of conscience’ can address this. This must be based in a philosophical increase in self-understanding, not just of the various modes and means of thought and action but more essentially of emotion and feeling, intention and affect, expectation and will and hope. What man needs is new capacity to envision, imagine how life/self COULD be, which invariably leads into how it OUGHT to be. Man must come to the threshold of self-disclosure that affords him such immense vastness of self-encounter that he either perishes under the weight of it or assumes the self-responsibility and fortitude to bear it. What is the instinct/drive to dominate-control but mere animality unrestrained, unspiritualized, by this I mean unconditioned by subtler self-understandings of conscience?

It may be the case that these sort of higher possibilities of conscience may actualize only when man reaches the limit of his ability to bear the crude self-destructivity of his unrestrained animality. Technology is a means to actualizing the human, be it “good” or “bad”, healthy or harmful, constructive or destructive. All is edified by technology, save… conscience itself. The means are increased many-fold, but the more essential ground from which these more fundamentally spring can remain cloaked and veiled, and even become more so at the hands of technological progress. Technology and science tend to insulate man within surface environments and the various logics and conditions of these environments, at the expense of subtler more “spiritual” holistic possibilities - this is because technology/science creates of this surface a new world, new possibilities for reality and life. That these are often lacking in the “spiritual” nature, more comprehensive and affective self-envisioning and grander understandings does not belie the fact that these new scientific-technical grounds themselves tend to supplant what came before them.

If the ToE is indeed true and acts to most fundamentally ground the scientific-technical paradigm, this would certainly act to begin effacing that which came before, the poetic-emotive-affective natures of man, in short his conscience, which speaks to his aesthetics and capacities for valuation. This is largely because these capacities have tended to survive unconsciously, largely unknown by man, veiled yet kept alive therein by appeal to Gods, metaphysics, universalities, whatever. This religious appeal, despite warping man, has also allowed for the preservation of these elements of conscience, albeit in a mostly simplistic and undeveloped form. The threat of technology and science is that it effaces even this veiling, it makes these elements no longer necessary to (social, interpersonal and personal) life. A life built upon a scientific-technical paradigm grounded firmly in a ToE need make no use whatsoever of these “atavisms” of man’s past being/s. Conscience may have no place in the human world of the future.

Yet we can also side with Heidegger perhaps and note that technology-science, especially through the ToE represents the highest peak of resistance against which man may come into the highest self-awareness and self-realization. Science may destroy the mysticisms but leave intact the jewels which these mysticisms have served to guard for thousands of years. This would be a “spiritualized” science, one not wontonly destructive or “for its own sake”, one without ultimately closed logics, but with broader appeal to the world, to the human past-experiential and historical contents which still, despite modernity, serve to provide the basis for “what it means to be human”. When science can respect the contents as well as the forms of the human being, then science will perhaps sufficiently humanize so as to be capable of edifying man without instead effacing him.

Quote :
2) On the brighter side, very many advances in technologies become within reach such as communications, huge memory storage advance, nanotech, very endless “free” energy, and all the fun things you see being used in society to spawn greater rush into a non-human world.

Yes, and my previous commentary applies here as much as it does to the weaponizing of technological progress. Man rushes head-first into his own dehumanization, eager (he thinks) to rid himself of the burden of living. Only by directly understanding that to live is to suffer, to be burdened, and that seeking escape is seeking one’s own self-annihilation at the hands of one’s own assumed self-impossibility, will man perhaps overcome this. We NEED these sort of technological possibilities if we are to survive, grow and evolve, become something grand and make of man a truly rational, sane and civilized entity.

Quote :
3) All religions, all governments, and all organizations of every type will change. Once it becomes clear what is really controlling what, “who’s the real boss” amongst all the noise, all else bows to what cannot be changed.

This is probably deserving of an entirely separate topic in itself. I would encourage you to frame this question and then post it within either the Social Theory & Economics or the Religion forum here, depending on which you feel best serves the substance of this potential inquiring.

Quote :
4) Life begins to be about living again rather than conquering, about increasing its momentum of harmony, not the height of its pyramidic temples. Medicines return to being about curing, not controlling. Laws become about arbitrating, not controlling. Psychology becomes about increasing life’s harmony, not holding it in predesignated places.

Aye that is possible, but again without a likewise philosophical uplift this technological possibility only further enslaves man. It is possible that man must be enslaved in order to break free from all possibility of enslavement. If man is truly in need, as a species, of such crude methods of reactionary stimulus then we can hope that the destructive possibilities ushered in by a ToE (a self-edified and firmly grounded, universally applicable science) would come slowly enough to allow for the reactions to build their own momentums and ultimately break out of the enslavement. It may be the case that SPEED, time (which is of course to say simply quantity of intensity of force with respect to the potential destabilizing effects of this intensity) is the most crucial factor here, maybe the only one that really counts for anything at all.

Quote :
5) Laws and moralities get reduced to demographic concerns only, with freedom to find ones nitch. And the “Devil” is locked into a cage of light within which there are no shadows in which to hide or reach out to make that unseen touch.

Man’s 10,000 year dance with the Devil comes to an end for once and for all time.

I am not so sure about this. Morality is based on far more than physical/metaphysical uncertainty. If we remove uncertainty from man’s relationship to the universe, have we really removed the impetus for morality? I see the genesis of morality within the deepest most fundamental spheres of man himself, his consciousness and the subjective self-encounters and conditions of its possibilities. I suppose I am largely sceptical that even a ToE as you describe it could unveil the inner subjective nature of the human being. I do not think that ANY outside-imposed understanding, even a ToE, could bring about the ‘apotheosis of self-consciousness’ as higher and more comprehensive/self-creative understanding and will-vision. The more man learns about himself “from the outside”, which is to say from scientific objectification under theorizing or model-building or crude grasping manipulation, the more he can be drawn away from self-oriented discovery and focus. That being said, of course the scientific paradigm also affords the opposite possibility as well, if taken from the right perspective.

I see a clear place for ethics and law within a post-human world: these would be firmly rooted in value, in the capacities for valuation which are the basis of all human action, thought and feeling. Knowledge subordinated to wisdom is what I am trying to get at here. Thus far the scientific paradigm has been trying to push the opposing perspective, wisdom subordiante to knowledge, wisdom AS knowledge. Perhaps no greater mantra for science can be conceived than ‘wisdom as knowledge’. We see the clear folly of such an approach, however, and it seems that this folly is rooted most essentially within the ethical conscience of man, meaning that a future “humanized/spiritualized” science would not efface this ethical conscience but rather free it entirely and lift it up, making of it a center and new beginning.

Of course I could be wrong here, and perhaps there is indeed no place for law and ethic in a post-human scientific world. I tend to see both possibilities as competing for the future. I would like to work toward actualizing the possibilities of the one over the other, for obvious reasons and because I tend to associate the latter with the total self-destruction and annihilation of the human being itself at the hands of the (unrestrained/unconditioned) scientific-technical paradigm. Interestingly there is nothing I can see about the ToE which tends it more toward one of these possibly futures rather than another. I wonder if you see it differently - what sort of future possibility, with respect to the vision/conscience of the human being that I outline above, or perhaps simply with respect to destructive vs creative-constructive, do you think is necessitated by your ToE, if any?

“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I sit at the edge of Socrates’ cave, one hand in, one hand out, one eye in, one eye out (which btw can lead to horrendous headaches).

You swthrt, speak of widening the cave entrance such that light may enter, removing the protection so diligently sought by those within. I on the other hand, speak of a multitude of mirrors positioned in my right hand so as to reflect such illumination within the cave, that there is no shadow or doubt, no fear of what is without, for what is above is so all around. We both speak of change and illuminating the darkness. I just prefer less taking away of the protections enamored by hearts immersed in their fear.

But contemplation of the destination is merely distraction from paving the path.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
I sit at the edge of Socrates’ cave, one hand in, one hand out, one eye in, one eye out (which btw can lead to horrendous headaches).

You swthrt, speak of widening the cave entrance such that light may enter, removing the protection so diligently sought by those within. I on the other hand, speak of a multitude of mirrors positioned in my right hand so as to reflect such illumination within the cave, that there is no shadow or doubt, no fear of what is without, for what is above is so all around. We both speak of change and illuminating the darkness. I just prefer less taking away of the protections enamored by hearts immersed in their fear.

I am not familiar with the acronym or term “swthrt”, was this a typo on your part?

I speak of more than widening the cave entrance. Perhaps you are intending to refer to Plato’s analogy of the cave wall? Regardless what I speak of is highly pertinent, that we spend at least equal time contemplating the concerns related to ethics and practical possibilities of application and the implications of a ToE as we do actually developing and spreading the ToE itself unto humanity. This great truth would need much preparation, much laying of groundwork before it were revealed to mankind. This concept is well-known in occult circles, that generally speaking mankind must be wel prepared in advance of revolutionary discoveries and radical new possibilities. Knowledge in the wrong hands is terribly destructive, and often humanity itself is nothing more than a “wrong hands”, until it has spent sufficient time contemplating and conceiving for itself a means to VALUE what has become a new tool in its hand.

The a-moral scientist cares not how his discoveries are to be used, he merely focuses on whether or not he can do what he conceives as possible. Discovery for its own sake, without appeal to conscience, possibile implication/s or ethics. This is dangerous and is one severe limit which mankind has yet to surpass. When man can conceive alongside his technical prowess and will to create a likewise ethical appeal to implication and likely outcome - when he can subordinate the will to truth to a higher ethic and law, which is to say to a philosophy of value - then and only then will science serve mankind.

Quote :
But contemplation of the destination is merely distraction from paving the path.

Absolutely not. Without such contemplation one cannot even be sure as to what path one is on, least of all where it is taking him.

“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps not, but I would think that your advice toward anyone would change depending on what you discovered actually worked or didn’t work. Doesn’t ethics depend at least to some degree on what will actually take place upon a given action? Or do you propose ethics that are absolute and regardless of all else?

Until you actually know the LoE (not the mere ToE), how would know what ethics to promote or be guided by?
And having learned the actual LoE, don’t you supposed that it might have an effect upon what you chose to do?
If the proposed ToE, has no effect upon any activity, ethic, or decision, how could it be an LoE?

“I have in this book the answer to what should be done with anything. What pray tell should I do with it?”

Until you read it, what is the point of speculating?

Or perhaps if I put it this way;
“Hey, I have God Himself on the phone, what should I do?”
“Not to overstate the obvious, but why in this Hell are you asking Me? You’re the one on the phone.”

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Additional thoughts…

Apparently long ago they thought they had the “God Formula” and from it presumptuously proceeded to do “the right thing”. They created a “Garden of Eden”, a “paradise”. Within that paradise, they maintained the trees of the philosophies and constructed Ahdam so as to keep the garden. And they said, “this is good”.

Now, I happen to also have the ToL, the “Theory of Life”, which is not a theory concerning from whence life came, but rather the theory on exactly what it is and thus what absolutely must be done to maintain it as a whole or any instance of it (“Tree of Life”). But Ahdam, it seems, wasn’t designed just right else the entire story of Ahdam and Eve would not have taken place. This indicates that either they didn’t follow their formula properly, or it wasn’t the real formula, merely a ToE, not The LoE.

I could be so presumptuous myself and also create and Ahdam and a Garden. But that is where I stop and ask, is that really the right thing to do. The real “God Formula”, the “LoE”, or even my ToE, must be consulted in order to answer that question. If I presume to already know that a Garden and an Ahdam are “the right thing”, then I have committed the “original sin” all over again. To sin merely means to make an erroneous presumption, a moment of poor judgment.

So when it comes to “what shall we do with this knowledge”, any step taken that is not inline with what the LoE would sustain as truly “good” or correctly designed in accord with the ToL, leads to the very trouble that the world already is in or some variation of it. What would be the point of that.

My point is that we cannot presume to assess and judge what is or isn’t “good” or better. What works is what works, all else is what doesn’t work, no matter how appealing it might seem.

And btw, your “Value-Ontology” is the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” - a philosophy distinguishing value, a ToV.
…but I also have that one in my lil bag. Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 30
Location : The Moon

PostSubject: Re: A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything) Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Abstract wrote:
can you give an example of a “why”?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?
Well, the simple reason for your question would be that if 2 masses were to be in the same location at the same time, they would be the same mass, merely twice as much of it. I could ask, “why can’t 2 clouds be in the same place at the same time?”

But to get into the really deep understanding requires a far more serious education on exactly what “mass” really means. Science doesn’t define it very exactly, thus RM doesn’t use the term. But inertia is effectively the same thing and RM does use the concept of inertia. What we call “mass” is really a culmination of turbulent energy. Energy isn’t a common term in RM either, but strongly relates to affectence. RM uses affectence, from affect, as its fundamental element of concern. Existence is affectence. Affectence then causes space, time, and all of the physical phenomena.

A very short and surprizing example of a why that Science apparently hasn’t figured out yet is why it is that an electron doesn’t go zipping into a proton and get annihilated. The surprising, yet provable answer is called “the weak force” in Science but is actually due to the fact that, believe it or not, the proton pushes it away out to its orbital radius. If it tries to leave its orbit, the proton will pull it back in, but will not allow it to get closer. Although I know exactly why it does that, which came as a stunning surprise to me, the whole thing is rather complex.

Contemporary physics has a few fundamental formula close to right, but not quite. One of those is the formula for charge and/mass attraction, Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2). That formula, as it turns out is very close to right as long as the particles are at a respectable distance. But when the particles get very close, that formula is too inaccurate to be used and doesn’t really apply. A negative particle when approaching a positive particle of greater inertia, will in fact be repelled. The particle will end up maintaining a distant orbit as it cannot get closer nor further away and thus we have atoms. Without that repulsion, there would be no atoms and no molecules and thus no life to wonder why.
But my point is that the only reason you think that two clouds would be the same cloud or what have you when in the same place at the same time is because you exist and have grown up in a world that prevents you from contemplating an alternative mode of workings of things… alternative laws… In other words why do we have these laws and not some laws that say two things can be two totally different things and occupy the same place at the same time… sort of but not exactly like phasing or something…

Fixed_Cross · September 26, 2018, 12:02pm

Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself “man,” that is, the valuator.
(Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)

If, as Zarathustra says, fundamental to mans being is his valuing, then logically this valuing he must do in terms of himself, for it to amount to his consistent being-man. By such consistently specific valuing, man assimilates material and grows as himself. By this valuing in terms of himself he does not, from the moment of his conception disintegrate by the laws of entropy that seem to govern the universe, but grows, from human cell to human emryo to human being. This was already understood, in a rudimentary form, by Nietzsche. But with this understanding a new question arose: how is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a circular argument, and leaves open the question: how there can be a valuing, a being? How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accomulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

With this logical deepening of the concept valuing, we are faced with the problem of identifying technically what this self valuing is. At this point, this holding-oneself-as-consistent in the face of otherness, the outer, to which I will refer as self-valuing, has been inferred , as a necessity to the possibility of valuing, which amounts the activity of manifest being, i.e. interacting with “the world” and thereby assimilating materials to grow, for example from atom to molecule, from molecule to cell, from cell to organism, etcetera. Other than such this inferring, it may not be possible to directly define self-valuing. We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If A is given as A, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given as A. Since the root-logic of science must keep from answering the question why or how, the sciences following from this logic must also keep from this. Science can therefore only describe, not explain.

Philosophy wants to venture where mathematics and its children the sciences, can not go. It wants to posit a value not predicated by an if, it wants to posit that A is given as A. The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”. Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” who is, and who questions that anything is, and who posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the logical certainty that he exists. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this very much into question. If the only ground for knowledge of what is (ontology) is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only philosophers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in I think. And I exist. The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To correct Descartes logic, we must draw back to the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “To be”. We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition exists / is –this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The correct phrase would be: “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing. We must start all over.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely – what we understand by them. No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

But fear not for the sake of philosophy, it will still find a way. What the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey may possibly be explicated further, deeper, more exact than these terms. To see how this is the case, observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same, which also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By the correction of Descartes logic, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. Now, the question becomes simply, what do all these verbs, by the grace of which the “I” can be explicated, have in common?

I will cut to the chase and propose that they are all functions of the the verb “valuing”. There is no other activity that propoerly explicates an “I” that is not directly the result of this one. Whether I walk, talk, think, eat or pray, I do so because I move towards an aim. In other words, I act because I seek to obtain a value. I seek to obtain a value because I have established this value to myself, in the form of an object (in the sense of “thing” and/or “goal”) And since all that I actively do is predicated by a value I have established to me, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of such activites, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-me (this “I”).

Furthermore, in all cases wherein this value-establishing to this “I” lead to a continuation of experience as this I, this I must be understood as a constant, which, as it is explained in terms of value establishment, means a standard value, which is constantly re-established with every act of and following from the act of valuing, as itself, which means that its consistency must itself be understood as an activity.

We can see that this does indeed describe physical reality accurately if we look at the periodic table, at what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. Thse are the “noble elements”, in case of the metals, platinum, gold, silver. What make as an element “noble” is that all of its electron rings are filled. It holds little potential for change, for interaction, but in itself it holds the greatest potential relative to the “atomic infrastructure”. Gold is, considered as itself, relatively extremely active, in that it holds in its structure the maximum amount “activities”. By this maximization of activity within a given structure, amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate now the correspondence between activity, “noble elements”, consistency, and value.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Consistency as Prime Mover Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Interesting. Value-ontology may also hold the key to deepening the distinction between activity and re-activity in Nietzschean ontology. Active self-valuing, valuing in terms of oneself actively, freely, affirmatively, is noble, while valuing in terms of oneself resentfully, reactively, in a petty, small and cramped manner is decadent and slavish. As you’ve identified: gold is noble, in a sense, for its “self-value” admits of the least possibility for change and influence by outer elements. Its self-value is purely active and affirmative, contained strongly within itself. A slavish self-value would admit of a high potential for influence by outer elements, a sort of vulnerability, so to speak. This provides us a nice means toward an exegesis of slavishness/nobility in terms of value-ontology. Deleuze furthered Nietzsche’s project of understanding the will to power in terms of the quantity of force, positing a relation between quantity and quality: that is, between amount of force and whether or not that force was active or re-active. On this basis, this dichotomy – active/reactive – he was able to consolidate and focus the Nietzschean ontology. Of course, with value-ontology, there exists the means to consolidate further such a project, from a dichotomy to a single concept: self-value.