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.

You are not listening. The Objective totality of your measure has no value. Its value neutral, As a totality. Any value it has is subjective of the properties brought to it. An electron is simple. It has one action, value or property relative to its totality, at least that we recognize to date. With out that, there is no electron. That value action directs its being. Its supported by its single purpose. That is The Objective, in totality. The electron is the value measure of a single property, relative to its 'being'. Its being is valueless with out that property. So there is no number for you or for ethics objectively. Not in totality. The totality is representative only, of its property. It is the measure of its property. You are asking for the measure of a measure. Property. Your being is Objectively measurable by the properties that contribute to, or direct its being. Weight, height, color sex etc. It has no value independent of those brought to its contextualization. No, you are projecting.. The nature of existence is the same as the nature of mathematics. One is a model of the other. Value must be provided or given to the objective, else there is no contextual property to support or direct a representative totality or sum. Form follows and is dependent on function to exist. Function is always relative to the Objective served by its being. Its action value. Evidence.

Sorry, replace the word 'measure' with definition, or sum. The Objective is the identification or recognition of totality to the sums state.

Then what are 'you', if not the measure of your subjective experience? ie: all that has occurred beyond and within your consciousness, to produce or build the structural manifestation of you? Your experience is subjective, its collective manifestation is The Objective attained.

Thank you. It is both Objective and Subjective as a duality. Celery is the Objective you have subtracted from existence in reference. Its not cucumber. Its definition is independent of other plants or existences otherwise defined. Its not sunlight. Its not soil. Those are relative, and it is subject to the existence of those things. They are not included in its definition though. They are objectively exclusive. Celery can be relative to cucumber, if the referenced Objective is to lets say, vegetables. Then both are subject to that objective definition. Their values contribute to that definition as property. Your relationship with celery is subjective. Its being edible is subjective. Its not defined by its edibility, but by its genus. There will be examples of celery that don't conform to the edible Objective. Its a separate definition. The fact a piece of celery being inedible does not alter its definition. To say otherwise is contrary to its definition. It would require reduction to the objective definition of celery. It could never then be clearly defined because you have introduced subjectivity, a relationship to edibility, into its definition. You are an Objective existence, independent of your relationship with the rest of existence by 'your' definition. There you are! At the same time, there would be nothing of 'you' with out the rest of 'existence', as Objectively defined. Your objective being is subject to such a thing as 'being'. Your being is a value to existence. Your being adds to its properties Its a matter of the the alluded perspective. Subtracted to the definition of property, or in relation to property.

Nice to see such a controlled study utilizing whats understood of soil health and biodiversity used in permaculture methodology (permanently sustainable agriculture mimicking natural systems). Soil cover is essential for soil health. Disturbing soils is not always avoidable, though it does interfere with natural processes, the roles of fungi and bacteria in the decomposition of organic matter into usable components. Disturbing soils always involves a degree of sterilization. My take is that Miyawaki method improves the soils nutrient content and arability but sterilizes the soil to a degree at the same time, interfering with the biodynamics. The plantings themselves then provide cover needed to rebuild those dynamics. The Kinvara adaptation to the Miyawaki method covers the soil 1st, with the raw materials to 'feed' the natural processes, then plants with as little disturbance as needed to those processes set in motion. The plantings cover a second time before soils surfaces are again exposed to U.V. irradiation .

You are not adding to the structure of our Objective here.

You made a statement. Where is the value to support it? Where does 'it' not work? Or maybe forget it, if faith in your own assumptions cause you to manifest a troll instead of a scientist. I will ignore further contributions from you. Theres been no value to the Objective in them so far. I word this to illustrate points made previously. Seems you can't even try to comprehend, even your own contributions.

Example?

The root remains the same, the different words used direct context, rather than alter the root. What ever value used, it is subjective of the purpose/objective it serves. It contributes value, in relation to that. Seems to me our understanding of the Objective and its subjective are at fault. I see the Objective as being negative for value. An existence, subtracted from relationship in its definition. Reduced to a singular definition, or statehood. A subtraction of existence to a marginalized/defined state of being, apart from all 'other' values or relation to existence. Its constituent property, likewise subtracted from all other value is its subjective. Any value to the Objective is given, by its constituent property. That serves and directs the defined Objective by its inherent relationship. In context. Those constituent values must be given, or assumed, for realization. What is realized is dependent on the constitutional values expressed by 5 is 5 of nothing, without the units to its measure. A rock is not a rock, without the minerals that contribute to its definition. They direct the definition through their values/properties of hardness, cohesion, mass etc. They in-form the state. What is realized is dependent on the constituent values expressed in The Objective properties. There is no scale of meaning. The scale is of Objective and subjective. Yes, you can put value into the Objective. Where it serves a further Objective, and becomes subject to that one. Such as building road works for humanity. Objective is to statehood, or structure. The value is not actually in the roads built, but in how those roads serve the Human objective. I don't see a scale of meaning. Value is always subjective, the Objective neutral or negative for value. If not in subjective service to Humanity, the building of roads has negative value. If we were to say our value lies in the objective of building roads, it would be inhuman to do otherwise. A double negative when the value is put into the Objective. No recognition of environment/reality. We see this demonstrated in the formation of the Kennel clubs over 150 years ago. They formed with the Objective of improving dogs and their breeding through the use of Pedigrees. A tool to maximize successful dogs through recording what is being built on. Their mistake was in putting all the value into the Pedigree, and not the dogs their Objective represented or served. The statement that Dogs bred outside of their own rules and regulations are not recognized has been widely understood as conditional to their constituency. Form follows function is a prominent tenet of Dog breeders and breeders of other animals. Yet the system formed by the Kennel clubs 150 or more years ago, supposedly to maximize the success of Domestic Dogs in their given environments, places the value in state, or form, above any function served. The double negative. There is no recognition of environment or subjectivity in that equation. As an objective body, they serve no purpose beyond preserving 'states' of dogs. An entropic biological system where nothing not already there, can contribute, and what does not contribute or fails to, is subtracted. The environment, or existence of Dog Breeders is not recognized by this system whos constituency openly and actively discredit their environment, (or the foundations of Dog breeding) through a 'faith' value in the Pedigree Objective. Dogs bred for subjective value to the environments or people they serve are not recognized with out a Pedigree to verify the validity of their state. Quite literally. Domestic Dogs natural environment is Humanity. Back yard breeders is a term used to discredit and remove environmental value/favor for those breeding dogs outside of the pedigree system, or deny validity of members within it. "Standards' of the pedigree system are upheld at the expense of the environment/existence they were to serve. The double negative sets up oppositional processes to the objective. It objects, to values negative to its own state as being where any value must lie. This appears to be reflected in other areas where double negatives, or value to the objective applies. It is reductive of the Objective existence. Removing property. Subjectivity, diversity and response ability. The objective is to State, Subjective to direction. Direction (or value)to the state is an entropic state, as in genetic selection. The Objective 'Objects' to anything less than its definition. Value imposes relationships contrary or oppositional The Objective.

It has no number objectively. Subjectively or in relation to yourself, you decide. Any 'number' you come up with though, isn't going to provide any 'real' value to you with out being part of/contributing to a larger equation. It would only be representative of The Objective state. To decide its subjective value to Humanity, you would need to involve Humanities complete content/context to determine the sum of its value contribution.. It has no value with out context/relationship. Your number just provides a definition.