[MD] energy, pattern, value

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Jan-Anders,
hello, I haven't spoken with you yet.  I think I can finally pose an
intelligent question.  I have excerpted from two of your recent
responses:

> 
> [Jan-Anders] Let them all be there together to get a complete picture; real energy, 
> objective pattern and subjective value instead of rivalising.

[Jan-Anders] Energy, Pattern and Value. These are the general conditions
that
separates the possible from the impossible, stating that anything is
possible and nothing is impossible, ...

I don't know if you have read many of my posts, but this latter part of
the second excerpt is very similar to comments I have made in a
conversation with Ham.  I might tweak it a bit to say, rather: 'nothing'
is meaningless, and so it shouldn't be uttered; something is.  Thus,
there is a boundary to something-is, which we can call the impossible;
and then, there is the idea of possible too.  But from here I am not
sure where to go.  Does the possible open up?  How?  I have tried to
play the game: what must something-is be like?, but my enthusiasm for
this game wanes real fast.  Instead of pursuing that route, which I have
argued should produce a (the) physics if it is done right (if it can be
done rightly), I jump over to a wholly separate position: I am.

Interestingly, whether I am trying to pursue physics or myself, there
are a lot of similarities.  And, at this level, I can make an analogy to
math - and I think that I have gathered correctly that you are a math
oriented person.  Have you ever tried to derive math?  From the start? 
In case you haven't, or for those who may read this and want to try, I
don't want to specify much, but 'start' is tough at best.  Elsewhere I
have referred to Feynman, where I paraphrase, you have to start in the
middle; even accepting the idea of zero and one is to start in the
middle.  Perhaps I have already ruined the fun, but a line segment, how
do you define it?  Two end points separated from each other?  Two end
points connected to each other?  Anyway, the point of the analogy is
that even this humblest beginning, zero and one, implies (at least)
three due to the relationship.  So the fact that you reduce to energy,
pattern, and value...

In ZAMM, RMP, for a time, considers the possibility that his Quality
should be in a triune relationship with subjects and objects.  Of course
he settles on Quality as primary, and unitary, the source of subjects
and objects.

anyway, I was wondering if you could give a detail by detail account at
how you arrived at energy, pattern, and value - or at least open up your
perspective a bit.

Secondly, regarding your first excerpt above, you use the word
'objective'.  I have a personal interest in this word, but it - the
word, not my personal interest in it - is not highly esteemed here.  I
was wondering what you mean by 'objective pattern', specifically
'objective'.

Thanks,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...