naitche

You are the observer of of an object( your 'system') in its total summation, Or you are the observer of relationships/values provided between or within sums. Either Or.

More clearly then, the Objective is Negative of value, if all value is subjective. Yes, Events, actions and interactions can be empirical as well, when viewed in isolation. In the Objective. If viewed in relation to something else though, its subjective. There is one reality, The objective and subjective making up its duality.

Seems to me this is already covered with The Objective and subjective realities. We have The Objective reality, being a defined system, marginalized by its definition, Subtracted from all subjects not conforming to that definition. We can further define, or subtract, its content by definition, objectively. Not inclusive of anything beyond the margins of definition. In Objection to. Negative value. Interactions/actions/events all being Subjective, or in relationship to...Positive value. the Objective is served through its subjective/content action, to achieve reality or summation. As modeled by Mathematics. Same mechanics.

So how about ones objective Humanity? Its image we conform to. Its manifestation defined and supported by our individual actions in service to that objective.

Because it most often not a trait harmful to species. No need to delete.

Very sad news. I will miss his contributions and ideas.

If light is not of sufficient strength, the plants will stretch towards the source causing weaker stem growth and greater spacing between leaf nodes, and affect synthesis resulting in some blanching. I suspect but say can't say definitively that longer 'days' won't alter that. Stronger light generally results in shorter, more dense and vibrant growth.

Yes, Where the body one is provided is part of the environment to which we respond to.

I agree. But the question brought in the O.P. was better crafted to avoid that kind of circularity. The meaning of life is subjective, but thats not the question posed. The question posed, and any answer arrived at, is more consequential than that.

Values are not always numerical . Forget living too, for the purpose of existence. To 'Be', is more fitting. Life is only one form of existence recognized. Exactly. To be alive is not the totality of being. Its only one value given to the totality of existence, so not definitive of being. Its one value, and our existence evidences that, but is not = to the definitive total. No to what?! existence? If you consider yours meaningless, that doesn't dictate that we should assume your perspective is correct. That there is no Objective we might potentially be able to contribute towards, by our existence. The existential structures of existence that our own might potentially contribute towards. What I have been trying to say is that the physical properties that allow mathematics to work for us, are those that allow existence. Form follows function. Form does not direct it. Function does that. An existential totality is not supported by its being, but by the value action or Objective to its being. The value(s) must be given 1st, and are always = to the objective. The objective is Not equal to any value other than its actual definition. More than one totality is not supportable in a single definition. Dogs are not Pedigrees. To assume that is true is not reality, but based on faith in a pedigree Objective that does not recognize the totality, or environment, of dogs as equal to their Objective being. That action or Objective applied to Dogs serves to subtract dogs to a Pedigree state that can not support the totality of 'Dogs' environment. An action that gains momentum as the environment is subtracted to one that supports a Pedigree over a dog. Responsibility to dogs and the environment that supports them is lost, as ability of of response is restricted to a pedigree presentation of state. Dogs loose value to their environment, as its demands are not met. Values of healthy longevity and abilities of response to the demands of diverse environments in prioritization of a pedigree, are lost to the total value of Dogs. Their Breeders deem the environment faulty for the failures of demonstrable value to it, and so gain support to restrict the environments available to dogs. Further decreasing abilities of response and diversity to the Objective. And it is relevant that some are selected against, to the Objective totality expressed.

Thanks to all. I will keep the advise in mind should I have this problem again., I was able to post no trouble this time 'round.

This below. You are too caught up in numbers. I have said many times there is no value in The Objective. No number value. Neutral. Its a subjectively applied totality. Its structure depends on subjective applications to its being.- it has none of its own. None as a totality. Its only representative, the presentation of the values supplied it in total. What number do you want to represent 42? Its the totality of 42 value units given its definition. Thats all. Its definition means nothing without 42 units of value to attribute it. The contribution of each unit is equal to the Objective. It won't achieve its objective definition of 42 if you only deem 38 of its units equal to the objective required as 42 is defined. Kind of like Humanity. When parts of the Human constituency are deemed unequal to that manifestation, unrepresentative of the whole, you subtract from its definition. Were you to attribute other values to the Human totality than than are Objectively defined, then some deem themselves more equal to the Human definition, and do the same. As with the Kennel clubs in their constitutional definition- A breeder is not valid as such, unless a member of a recognized Pedigree organization, breeding only within that systems rules and regulations. Nor is a Beagle recognized as a Beagle, with out a pedigree to verify it as such. anything less is discredited from their definition of a breeder, or the dogs they represent. The total space of a breeder is divided, equal only in opposition. Diminishing value to both in mutual disregard. The total space of a Dog breeder is mutually discredited because neither part can live up to the expectations created for responsible Dog breeding in their Human environment. Humanity isn't defined by its number but by its objective totality. What is unequal to its definition. Dogs are not defined by a pedigree, but by their Objective totality. What is unequal to their definition. The Objective is a subtraction, to a totality of state. More than one definition can not maintain totality. See above, I don't claim to model celery, or fun. Only that their subjective constituent properties/actions direct any structure given to existence. That subjective values must be 1st provided, to achieve objective totality to existence. That form follows function, in that direction given subjectively, informs or instructs the totality of an objective state . As in any formulae. That its the expression of subjective values that lead or direct an objective totality or state of existence. I can't assume your objection to its existence applies.

I doubt there is much help for this unusual problem, I suspect I will have to wait, as earlier. This is the 2nd time I've encountered it. I am unable to contribute to the topic on 'the Nature of existence' in philosophy forum. I can navigate or contribute else where, but once into that topic trying to post a reply, the curser will not register. This does not appear to be an issue in any other topic. Strange.

Naturally. Your whole being is designed to serve That Objective Human existence identified here as Dimreepr. No purpose to existence is there, if we have no Objectives to serve. No structure in that. All that contributes to your Objective totality is equal to it. Thats the nature of its being. There is no totality otherwise, to support. Those 'environmental' values though, can't ever equal the totality on their own. The Objective plays an equal role to subjective values, in their applications. Read the sentence you quoted before you single it out for reply. Then you should be able to show me why not. I would actually be quite happy for some one to do that. This is not fun.

From what I understand attrition should/would be expected as part of the processes of growth, nourishment and diversity but allowing for changing conditions as the forests evolve. ie lower growth choked out under canopy, but allowed to regrow where canopies are damaged, to shelter regrowth beneath. Not meant to represent a finished production, but to speed up a more natural evolution in maximization of supportive environmental conditions. Emissions mitigation is a benefit thats not inconsequential, but only one benefit, to mitigate, not solve a carbon emissions problem. Other benefits such as better soil hydrology, can also assist in mitigating climate extremes, desertification and other of effects of carbon emissions. It should not be seen as simply a sequestration solution. Grasslands can often succeed forests, where soils were previously unsuited with poor hydrology. An open forest mixture can be the most productive and diverse, indicative of a healthy system. This is just one example of methodology to speed a procession to that end.