A site dedicated to the rational study of the UMMO affair
D78 Our EAAIODI GOO (Ontological) foundations.
OUR EAAIODI GOO (Ontological) FOUNDATIONS.
Since you, Mr. Ribera Jordá, are not a specialist in the Philosophy of EARTH, we shall try to use a more familiar and comprehensible terminology, with a vocabulary akin to that discipline.
The problem of “BEING”, as it has been approached by the thinkers of EARTH, had a radically different formulation on UMMO. Our ancestors never doubted for a moment the reality external to one’s own consciousness. For them “things” existed “outside me”, but their real essence was masked from us by the encoding of our sensory pathways (See Note 7). This principle has remained constant, until new forms of dialectic enriched the primitive schemes.
NOTE 7. -
Up to this point the thinkers of EARTH also accept the difficulty of gaining access to external reality, whose mental images were integrated through a code used by our exteroceptor and proprioceptor organs.
A synthesis of our present EAYODI GOO (ontology) could be formulated as follows:
It is not possible to define the concept of BEING at a first stage. “FOR-ME”, who am pure consciousness of my IGIO UALEEXII (I) and of the “things” that AIOOYA (exist dimensioned) around me, I am immersed in a WAAM (Universe) that transcends towards me.
“Things”, the objects of my mental process, undoubtedly “are” not as I perceive them, as I process them by means of a very complex rationalizing mechanism. Causal relations are relations “IN-ME”, processed according to an order elaborated by such mechanisms. A plant is apprehended by “me” with characteristics that symbolize its “real” attributes. “My” sensory impression, having entered the field of consciousness, is undoubtedly an illusion based on certain external constants. Thus colour will be the psychological impression of a stimulus of electromagnetic nature, and the concept of mass imprinted on my consciousness is far from being identical with the real physical attribute that generates it. Up to here, Mr. Ribera, such ideas agree with the thought of ideologists of EARTH.
But even though “BEINGS” are masked on reaching our I, even though we could not know how they really ARE, is their essence EXTERNAL-TO-ME constant? I may not know how a molecule of camphor that stimulates my olfactory sense organ, provoking the conscious sensation, really “IS”; but whenever I perceive that aroma, can I be sure that it is an attribute of camphor alone, unless it is an illusion or a hallucination?
Expressed in another way:
Even though I did not know how “the WAAM really is”, is the WAAM “THERE”, dynamic or static, changing or rigid, generating ideas that are reflected in my consciousness without my “I” being capable of changing its essence, its very “BEING”?
Our answer is NO.
OEMII with a defined neurocortical and mental structure (you men of EARTH, we men of UMMO, and all similar beings of the WAAM) can never gain access to the truth, to the essence of the WAAM, not because such a WAAM “does not exist”, nor because there is a barrier that prevents us, but because IN THINKING ABOUT BEING, WE MODIFY ITS ESSENCE (A crude simile will illustrate this proposition): When a physicist of your Planet sets out to observe a micrometallographic specimen in order to check its optical properties, he produces an alteration in the process by using light in the observation. This is an insurmountable obstacle, for the observation itself alters the genuine nature of what is observed. Well then, something similar happens with BEING: It “IS-THUS” insofar as IT IS NOT THOUGHT AND ITS IDEA DOES NOT EXIST IN MY CONSCIOUSNESS.
As soon as we THINKING BEINGS converge upon BEING, it no longer (IS) nor (IS-NOT) (here your logic offers us no informative solution for developing this concept).
We OEMII therefore “create” the WAAM by thinking about it; the Cosmos presents itself to us with a configuration of IBOZOO-UU (see further on the physical concept of the WAAM). Undoubtedly those IBOZOO-UU exist as a specular reflection of SOMETHING-THAT-WAS-NOT-IBOZOO before we thought and, since to think is to BE, before we OEMII existed.
Here is a kind of “SYMBIOSIS” between external reality and ourselves. External Reality bends to our mental process; it is modified as soon as we focus our consciousness upon it. We thus elaborate a binary model of WAAM, made up of physical factors, IBOZOO-UU, which is our “CREATION”, and in turn this Reality shapes our I, creates it, generates it.
At this point you may think that our system is a kind of Pantheism that excludes the idea of a “NECESSARY BEING” or WOA (God) TRANSCENDENT-TO-THE-COSMOS. It is not so, as you will be able to verify further on.
Let us imagine other “thinking” beings different from us (EESEEOEMI). (We are not referring to other beings with a different physiological structure, but to some “I” whose mental schemes are configured in another way.) There is no doubt that “they” will try to THINK-ABOUT-THE-COSMOS (the process “TO THINK” must not, of course, be interpreted anthropomorphically), but in “doing so” they will modify its BEING. So that their WAAM WILL NOT BE our WAAM (Note: THIS IS IMPORTANT. We are not saying that the WAAM will be observed or FELT, or PERCEIVED, or SCHEMATIZED in a different way -that is obvious-. Of course the image of that Cosmos must be different, just as for you the optical image captured by a dipterous insect is different from the image perceived by the human retina.
No, it is not only that the image of that WAAM is different because mental processes with a configuration other than ours intervene. It is that the very BEING, the very ESSENCE of the WAAM, will be disturbed. This relativity of BEING, this polyvalence of “BEING”, is reflected in our logic by what we call AAIODI AYUU (range or network of forms of BEING).
Let us suppose that we arrange symbolically all the ontological possibilities (to do so, set aside the Aristotelian principle of the excluded middle) with respect to “SOMETHING” transcendent to my “I”.
(IS A BEING)1 (IS NOT A BEING)2 (
IS A BEING)3 (
IS A BEING)4 .... ........................... (
IS A BEING)n
This is a set or series of non-tautological possibilities that we can encode still more synthetically thus:
S1 ; S2 ; S3 ; S4 ; S5 ; ........................... ; Sn
We thus arrive at the meaning of AIOOYA, whose transcription into a terrestrial language is impossible. AIOODI is “that” which is susceptible of adopting infinite possibilities of “existence” (S1 S2 S3 .............. Sn). Thus, for example, an IBOAYA OU (energy quantum, photon) can S1 (BE) or S2 (NOT BE; in the case where it is transformed into mass), but both possibilities are deformations of an AIOOYA caused by my “I” (thinking being).
We OEMII thus see the WAAM and its integrated factors under the possibilities S1 ; S2 ; .............. ; Sk. You men of EARTH accept for the time being only the possibilities S1 and S2.
But other hypothetical thinkers will grasp the AIOODI under possibilities different from ours Sk+1 Sk+2 ............ Sm
The drama of the OEMII, or of another EESEEOEMI, lies in the fact that his search for truth, his search for the AIOODI, will be fruitless, for it will always present itself to him under the characteristics S1 S2 S3 ................. Sn.
My judgements, my acts, which are ordered by the objectives that can be reached and by the means to be used, also constitute “IN THEMSELVES” so many S1 ; S2 ; ............. ; Sk, self-deformed by their own thinking process.
